Spracklen

Spracklen v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.

Good Law
7 F.2d 468·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3573
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 1925No. 4467California274 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbebt, J.

The plaintiff in error, Dora Spraeklen, together with her minor children, brought an action against the defendant in error to recover damages for the death of her husband, which was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in error. The answer denied the alleged negligence, and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The minutes of the court below show that the plaintiffs, after introducing their testimony, rested, and that the defendant moved *469 for nonsuit “on the grounds stated, which motion being submitted, it was ordered that the motion be and is granted, and that judgment bo entered accordingly, and the jury discharged.” It was further adjudged that the defendant recover from the plaintiffs its costs. No bill of exceptions is presented in this court and none appeal’s to have been made or allowed in the court below.

The plaintiffs in error, however, seek to bring before this court the material evidence in the case, by injecting into their assignments of error the grounds of the motion and the testimony pertinent thereto. This, of course, is not permissible. The proposition that evidence received in the trial court cannot be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.