« AnteriorContinuar »
which ought not to have been read, was read before a commissioner to whom the case was referred to compute damages, there being other evidence that the damages were as great as this court finally awarded. Steamer Webb, 14 Wall. 406.
31. (Dec., 1872.) Where no request is made for specific instructions, and no error is perceived in the instructions actually given, the fact that the charge may not have covered the entire case is not ground for reversal. Shutte v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 152.
32. (Dec., 1872.) When the District and Circuit Courts, in such a decree, agree in their estimate of the value of the sailing vessel, this court will not set aside their estimate, without satisfactory evidence that they were mistaken. The Commerce, 16 Wall. 33.
33. (Dec., 187.2.) Where, on an information for breach of the internal revenue laws, the record shows that an answer of a claimant was stricken out by the court, in a case in which he was entitled to a trial by jury, and judgment rendered against him as upon default, the court will not presume that the order was passed for good cause, unless enough is shown in the record to warrant such a conclusion. Garnharts v. United States, 16 Wall. 162.
34. Any such judgment will accordingly be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to permit the claimant to answer and to award a venire. Ib.
35. (Dec., 1872.) A. brought suit on a policy on vessel and freight for a total loss. The jury found the whole amount insured, with interest, and $5,000 besides, for damages; and judgment was entered accordingly. Held, that the party could not recover damages beyond legal interest; and that there was error on the face of the record. Insurance Co. v. Piaggio, 16 Wall. 378.
36. The error held, however, not to require a venire de novo, but to be such that, under the “ Act to further the adminis
tration of justice ” (17 Stat. at Large, 197), the court could reverse the judgment, and modify it by disallowing the $5,000, and remanding the case with directions to enter judgment for the residue found by the jury, with interest; the case being one where all the facts were apparent in the record, though not by a special verdict in form. Ib.
37. A judgment will not be reversed for want of a charge requested, when the record contains no sufficient information that the charge requested was material to the issue.
Ib. 38. Nor because the court charges in a way which, though right in the abstract, may not be so in application, when the record does not show that sufficient evidence had not been given to warrant the jury in passing on the question. Ib.
39. (Dec., 1872.) Where a subordinate court, which had no jurisdiction in the case, has given judgment for the plaintiff or defendant, or improperly decreed affirmative relief to a claimant, an appellate court must reverse. It is not enough to dismiss the suit. United States et al. v. Huckabee, 16 Wall. 414.
40. (Dec., 1872.) Where, after judgment for a certain sum, execution is allowed, during a motion for a new trial, to issue for a part of the sum, which part is admitted to be due, this, though anomalous, is not a ground for reversal, where no objection appears to have been made, and where it may fairly be presumed that the defendant assented to what was done; and where, a new trial being afterwards granted, it was limited to a trial as to the excess of the claim above the amount for which the execution was issued. Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483.
41. (Oct., 1874.) The doctrine over and over again ruled by this court, that when, in admiralty cases involving questions of fact alone, the District and Circuit Courts have both found in one way, every presumption is in favor of the decrees; and that there will be no reversal here, unless for manifest error, again declared. The S. B. Wheeler, 20 Wall.
42. (Oct., 1874.) This court has no power to reverse, on appeal, the imposition of a fine decreed by the Circuit Court for contempt of it. New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387.
43. (Oct., 1874.) Though, on appeals in admiralty, involving issues of fact alone, this court will not, except in a clear case, reverse, where both the District and the Circuit Court have agreed in their conclusions, yet in a clear case it will reverse, even in such circumstances. The Lady Pike, 21 Wall. 1.
44. (Oct., 1878.) In an action on certain coupons originally attached to bonds issued by the county of Pickens, South Carolina, the holder of them made as sole defendants to his complaint certain persons whom he named “as county commissioners” of said county. No objection was taken to the pleadings, nor any misnomer suggested. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Held, 1. That neither the constitution nor the statutes of that state declare the name by which a county shall be sued. 2. That, if the action should have been brought against the county by its corporate name, the misdescription, if objected to, was, by the statutes of that state, amendable at the trial; but it furnishes no ground for reversing the judgment. Commissioners v. Bank, 7 Otto, 374.
ERROR WITHOUT INJURY.— DECISIONS 1-21.
1. (Jan., 1818.) Where the plaintiff excepted to the opinion of the court, which opinion was more adverse to the defendants than to the plaintiff, this court will not, at the instance of the plaintiff, reverse the judgment, although there may have been error in the instructions, provided that error consisted in giving the plaintiff too much. Mc Micken v. Webb, 6 How. 292.
2. (Dec., 1861.) An objection to the form of the action, or other defect in the pleadings, will not be noticed in this court, when it appears from the undisputed facts of the case
that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in any form of action. Washington v. Ogden, 1 Black, 451.
3. (Dec., 1866.) When it is sought to apply the rule that a court of error will not reverse, where an error works no injury, it must appear beyond doubt that the error complained of neither did prejudice nor could have prejudiced the party against whom the error was made. Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall. 796.
4. (Dec., 1869.) The erroneous instruction of the court, in regard to the effect of a deed of mortgage on the plaintiff's title, is no ground for reversal, when this court can see that the plaintiff had no title on which the jury could have found in his favor. Deery v. Cray, 10 Wall. 263.
5. (Dec., 1870.) Where the record shows that the case of a plaintiff is inherently and fatally defective, a judgment against him will not be reversed for instructions, however
Barth v. Clise, 12 Wall. 401. 6. (Dec., 1871.) Nor is a judgment to be set aside because the charge'of the court may be open to some verbal criticisms, in particulars considered apart by themselves, which could not, when taken with the rest of the charge, have misled a jury of ordinary intelligence. Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 271.
7. (Dec., 1871.) Though error may have been committed by a court below, on the then state of statutory law, yet where a statute has been passed since that court gave their judgment, changing the then existing law, so that if the judgment were reversed and the case sent back, the court would now, and in virtue of the new statute, have to give the same judgment that they gave before erroneously, this court will affirm. Pugh v. Me Cormick, 14 Wall. 361.
8. (Dec., 1871.) A judgment will not be reversed for the rejection of testimony, whether it was in strict principle admissible or not, where the rejection worked no harm to the party offering it. Gregg v. Moss, 14 Wall. 564.
9. (Dec., 1872.) Where it was plain that, though such a plea (of non est factum) was technically struck out, no evidence was rejected on account of its absence, but that the defendant litigated every question of fact as fully as if that pleading had remained, and that though much evidence offered by the defendant was rejected, none was so rejected because of the absence of a proper plea, this court refused to
Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wall. 355. 10. (Dec., 1872.) When, on the undisputed parts of a case, a verdict is clearly right, so that if a new venire were awarded, the same verdict would have to be given, a court will not reverse because, on some disputed points, a charge may have been technically inaccurate. Walbrun v. Babbitt, 16 Wall. 577.
11. (Oct., 1873.) When it is argued here that an error in the court below worked no injury to the party complaining, the fact that it worked no injury must be made to appear beyond question. If it is only to be seen by a mere preponderance of evidence, and the error is substantiated, the judgment must be reversed. Smiths v. Shoemaker, 17 Wall. 630.
12. (Oct., 1874.) Though there may be plain error in a charge, yet, if the record present to this court the whole case, and it be plain from such whole case that, if the court had charged rightly, the result of the trial would have been the same as it was, this court will not reverse. Decatur Bank v. St. Louis Bank, 21 Wall. 294.
13. (Oct., 1874.) Though a court erroneously overrule a demurrer to a special plea specially demurred to, yet if, on another plea, the whole merits of the case are put in issue, the error in overruling the demurrer is not ground for reversal. Chambers County v. Clews, 21 Wall. 317.
14. (Oct., 1877.) Appeals, in admiralty, to the Circuit Court carry up the whole fund ; and mere technical errors in the decree of that court, not injuriously affecting the rights of the parties, do not present sufficient grounds for reversing it here. The Wanata, 5 Otto, 600.