Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/61/427/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:10:51+00:00

Document:
Rulings of the court below in admitting or rejecting evidence can be brought to this Court for revision only by a bill of exceptions.
Every special verdict, in order to enable the appellate court to act upon it, must find the facts on which the court is to pronounce the judgment according to law, and not merely state the evidence of facts. In this manner it becomes a part of the record.
Where there is a bill of exceptions, the writ of error does not operate only upon that part of the record. Wherever an error is apparent on the record, it is open to revision, whether it be made to appear by a bill of exceptions or in any other manner.
Where there is no dispute in regard to the facts, and consequently no necessity for any ruling of the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, the case may be brought before an appellate court by a special verdict or an agreed statement of facts.
But in such a case, the previous rulings of the court upon questions of evidence do not come before the appellate court unless brought up by a bill of exceptions.
A bill of exceptions may include in its scope the rulings of the court as to the admissibility of evidence, which a demurrer to evidence cannot do.
A demurrer to evidence makes the evidence a part of the record.
So where oyer of any instrument is prayed or there is a demurrer to any part of the pleadings.
A writ of error operates only upon the record, and brings it into this Court.
"A verdict was then, by direction of the court, taken for the plaintiffs for the premises claimed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the questions of law, with liberty to turn this case into a special verdict or bill of exceptions,"
this paper cannot be considered a part of the record. A special verdict requires the presence and assent of the court, and a bill of exceptions must always be signed and sealed by the judge.
In this case, the paper is merely a report of the judge who presided at the trial, and as such must be disregarded by this Court.
Under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, where the jurisdiction of this Court is not shown upon the record, the writ of error must be dismissed; but under the twenty-second section, if no error appears upon the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
This was an action of ejectment brought by the defendants in error against Suydam to recover two lots of ground in the City of New York. On the part of the defendants in error it was contended that every material question in the case was adjudged by this Court in the cases of Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495; Williamson v. Irish Presbyterian Congregation, 8 How. 565; and Williamson v. Ball, 8 How. 566. The counsel for the plaintiff in error alleged that this case was unlike those in several important particulars. But as the decision of this Court turned altogether upon the manner in which the case had been brought up, it is only necessary to state so much of it as will illustrate the point of practice.
for a writ of possession, which was granted. Judgment signed this 6th day of December, 1854, R. E. Stilwell, Deputy Clerk.
"Circuit Court United States, Southern District of New York"
"WILLIAMINA H. WILLIAMSON ET AL. v. JAMES H. SUYDAM"
"This is an action of ejectment for two lots in the Sixteenth Ward of the City of New York. The declaration is in the usual form; the plea is not guilty. Either party may refer to the pleadings as part of this case."
"The plaintiff gave in evidence an exemplified copy of the will, &c."
"The defendants' counsel then proved the acts of the legislature, the deed of Clement C. Moore the petitions to the legislature and to the chancellor, the master's reports, the orders of the chancellor, the extracts from the journals of the two houses, of which copies are hereto annexed; these were all objected to by the plaintiffs' counsel, and were read subject to the objection."
"The defendants' counsel then offered in evidence a deed from Thomas B. Clarke to Peter McIntyre, of which the following is a copy &c."
"The plaintiffs' counsel then offered to prove:"
"1st. That the acts of the legislature were not for the benefit of the infants, but for the benefit of Thomas B. Clarke merely."
"2d. That the orders of the chancellor had the effect to take the proceeds of their future interest in the property sold, and to apply the same to the father's debts, without giving them any benefit, by support or otherwise, out of the interest of the life estate in other parts of the property."
"3d. That under the acts and orders he actually aliened the lot on Broadway and all the southern moiety of the Greenwich property, excepting two lots, and that none of the children received any benefit from such alienation."
"4th. That nearly the whole of the property mentioned in the acts of legislature was mortgaged or conveyed by Thomas B. Clarke for old debts; that no proceeds were ever invested or secured, or ever received, from the grantors or mortgagees."
"5th. That so far from providing for the children or protecting the estate, he suffered a large portion of the northern moiety to be sold for assessments, and was proceeding to dispose of the same moiety for twenty-one years, when, on the 31st of March, 1826, a bill was filed against him on behalf of the children, and an injunction issued. "
"6th. That on the death of his wife he broke up housekeeping and ceased to live with his children, that the plaintiff was Mrs. Williamson, was, from the death of her mother, in August, 1815, supported and educated entirely by one of her aunts, and that, after about two years from the mother's death, the other children were supported and educated by their friends and were entirely neglected by their father."
"The defendants' counsel objected; the objection was sustained. The plaintiffs' counsel excepted."
"A verdict was then, by direction of the court, taken for the plaintiffs for the premises claimed, subject to the opinion of the court upon the questions of law, with liberty to either party to turn this case into a special verdict or bill of exceptions."
"Endorsed: 127, Circuit Court, Southern District New York. Williamina H. Williamson, agt. James H. Suydam. -- Cr. case. -- Jas. L. Sluyter, plaintiffs' attorney."
"Filed this 29th January, 1855."
Then followed a transcript of other papers in the case. The writ of error was dated 18th December, 1854.
This was the state of the record upon which the case was brought up to this Court.
pendency of the suit and before the trial, two of the plaintiffs, being the two first named in the declaration, died, and the cause was regularly revived in the name of the survivors and the heirs of those deceased. At the adjourned session of the circuit court held at the City of New York on the first Monday of October, 1849, the parties went to trial on the general issue, and the jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiffs; after the verdict, the cause was continued, as the record states, until the first Monday of October, 1850, and "the same day is given to the parties to hear the judgment of the court," and on that day the judgment was rendered on the verdict for the plaintiffs that they do recover against the said James H. Suydam the possession of the said premises according to the said verdict of the jury, and for their damages, costs, and charges, and a writ of possession was duly issued, directed to the marshal of the district. All these proceedings were in the usual course of judicial action, and were duly and formally entered on the record of the suit, and consequently furnish no ground of complaint whatever on the part of the present plaintiff, who was the defendant in the court below. The declaration contained on its face a good cause of action, and the general issue and joinder were regularly filed in the cause, and were entirely sufficient to make up a valid issue between the parties to the suit, and the verdict, which was strictly formal and legal was in every respect responsive to the issue formed. It appears that the jury found, in the very words of the issue, that the defendant was guilty of unlawfully withholding the premises claimed by the plaintiffs, as alleged in the declaration, and the judgment followed the verdict and was founded upon it, for the premises as they were set forth and described in the pleadings. Every step in the cause, from the filing of the declaration to the issuing of the writ of possession, was in exact conformity to the most approved practice and precedents in the federal courts.
Court in giving the subject a reexamination with the aid of the additional light which has been thrown upon it by the elaborate and very able discussion at the bar, and the more so as it appears that a case depending upon the same evidences of title has since that time been before the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, where a conclusion was reached widely different from the one expressed by this Court on the former occasion in the answers given to the questions then submitted for its consideration. The difficulty, however, in the way of any such examination at this time is insurmountable for the reason that the record does not contain either a bill of exceptions, special verdict, or an agreed statement of facts. Some of the questions discussed at the bar might have been satisfactorily presented in a special verdict or by an agreed statement of facts, while in respect to others, apparently regarded as important, such as the rulings of the court in admitting or rejecting evidence, it is proper to remark that they could only be brought to this Court for revision by a bill of exceptions. Such rulings are never properly included in a special verdict, any more than in an agreed statement of facts.
to a court of error, where nothing is open for revision except the questions of law inferentially arising on the facts stated in the special verdict, and we here remark for the purpose of illustration that it is not so much because the proceeding is denominated a special verdict that the party by virtue of it is authorized to invoke the aid of a revisory tribunal as it is because it has the effect to incorporate the facts of the case into the record which otherwise would have rested in parol, and therefore could not have been reached on a writ of error, and the same remark applies to a bill of exceptions, which is a still more comprehensive method of enlarging the record by incorporating into it not only the facts of the case, but the rulings of the court in admitting and rejecting evidence and the instructions given to the jury, and after it is signed, sealed, and filed in the case, it becomes a part of the record, and the matters therein set forth can no more be disputed than those contained in any other part of the same record, and are alike subject to revision in a court of error. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that in such cases the writ of error operates only on the bill of exceptions. Such is never the fact unless the whole record is set forth in the bill of exceptions, as the operation of the writ of error addresses itself to the record as an entirety, and not to any separate portion of it as distinct from the residue, and when the cause is removed into the appellate court, any error apparent in any part of the record is within the revisory power of such tribunal. The rule is that whenever the error is apparent on the record, it is open to revision, whether it be made to appear by bill of exceptions or in any other manner. Bennet v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669; Slacum v. Pomeroy, 6 Cranch 221; Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 410.
It should be observed, however, that the rulings previously made by the court in admitting or rejecting evidence during the progress of the trial are no more revisable on a special case, as it is called, when the verdict is taken subject to the opinion of the court on an agreed state of facts than where the agreed statement is submitted directly to the court without the intervention of the jury, and for the obvious reason that in the one case as much as in the other, the foundation laid for the action of the revisory tribunal is based upon the consent of the parties to the suit, and consequently the action of the appellate court must be confined to the facts as they were agreed and as they appear in the record of the case. Arthurs v. Hart, 17 How. 6; Bixler v. Kunkle, 17 S. & R. 310. At one time, an attempt was made to introduce a different practice into this Court, but it was distinctly disclaimed, and has never been sanctioned in writs of error to any of the circuit courts in states where the proceedings are according to the course of the common law. Shankland v. Corporation of Washington, 5 Pet. 390.
from it, so far as it was admissible and competent, every inference of fact and law which it would have been competent for a jury to have drawn from it, and that agreement was appended to an agreed statement of facts, on which the case was submitted to the determination of the circuit court in this district. Subsequently it was brought into this Court on a writ of error for revision, and was heard and determined upon the matters properly exhibited in the record; but this Court, in giving judgment, took occasion to characterize the agreement as an unusual one, and denied that it was competent for parties to impose any such duties on this Court, and expressly declared that the case was not to be drawn into precedent. Whenever the parties to a pending suit desire to place the facts of the case upon the record, so as to secure the right to have the law arising on the facts revised on a writ of error, they must adopt some one of the methods already suggested to effectuate that purpose, as there are no other effectual methods by which it can be accomplished.
demurrer to it would be to waive the objection to the ruling instead of laying the foundation to correct the error. Bulkely v. Butler, 2 Barn. & Cress. 434. A demurrer to evidence is defined by the best test writers to be a proceeding by which the court in which the action is depending is called upon to decide what the law is upon the facts shown in evidence, and it is regarded in general as analogous to a demurrer upon the facts alleged in pleading. When a party wishes to withdraw from the jury the application of the law to the facts, he may, by consent of the court, demur in law upon the evidence, the effect of which is to take from the jury and refer to the court the application of the law to the facts, and thus the evidence is made a part of the record, and is considered by the court as in the case of a special verdict. A mere description of the proceeding is sufficient to show that it is the evidence, and nothing else, that goes upon the record. Since it was determined that a demurrer to evidence could not be resorted to as a matter of right, it has fallen into disuse, and as long ago as 1813 it was regarded by this Court as an unusual proceeding, and one to be allowed or denied by the court in the exercise of a sound discretion under all the circumstances of the case. Young v. Black, 7 Cranch 565; United States Bank v. Smith, 11 Wheat. 171; Fowle v. Common Council of Alexandria, 11 Wheat. 322.
was held, in accordance with the principle here advanced, that the action of the circuit court of this district in sustaining a demurrer to a plea of performance in a suit on a replevin bond was the subject of revision on a writ of error, and the rule adopted in that case was undoubtedly correct, as the effect of the demurrer was to make the error apparent in the record; and when that is so, it becomes the subject of revision just as much as when it is made to appear by a bill of exceptions or a special verdict.
"where a case shall be made with leave to turn the same into a special verdict or bill of exceptions, the party shall not be at liberty to do either, at his election, but the court may, if they think proper, prescribe the one which he shall adopt."
v. Yates, 16 How. 14; Sheppard v. Wilson, 6 How. 275. The necessary effect of the proceeding, where the verdict is taken subject to the opinion of the court, would be to postpone the preparation of the special verdict till after the parties were heard and the opinion given, and to that extent the delay is allowable, though we are by no means prepared to admit that it may be done after the cause has been removed into this Court. The result is we have come to the conclusion, on this branch of the case, that the paper in the transcript denominated the "case" must be considered merely as a report of the judge who presided at the trial; that it is not a part of the record, and consequently must be wholly disregarded by this Court in determining whether the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed or affirmed. Having come to that conclusion, it becomes unnecessary to notice any of the rulings of the court in admitting or excluding evidence, as no part of that report can be taken into consideration.
"It is not like a special verdict, or a statement of facts agreed of record, upon which the court is to pronounce its judgment. The judgment was rendered upon a general verdict, and the report is mere matter in pais to regulate the discretion of the court as to the propriety of granting relief, or sustaining a motion for new trial."
"any part of the record on which the judgment of an appellant court is to be exercised unless made a part of it by a bill of exceptions or in some other manner recognized by law."
These cases, we think, have a strong tendency to support the proposition that the paper, in the transcript denominated the "case," cannot be regarded as a part of the record, and if not, then it is clear that it cannot be considered on the present occasion, irrespective of the fact that it was not filed till more than a year after the writ of error issued, which of itself is decisive of the point that it cannot be considered. Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 120.
It is certain, therefore, that there is no error in the record, and the only remaining question is what disposition ought to be made of the cause under the circumstances of the case.
this Court has no jurisdiction of the case, and in that event the writ of error must be dismissed, as this Court under those circumstances has no power either to reverse or affirm the judgment brought up for revision. And such was the state of the record in Inglee v. Coolidge, and accordingly the writ of error was dismissed. The writ of error, however, in this case issued under the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, in respect to which a different rule prevails, as will be seen by attending to the language of the act. That section provides in effect that final judgments in a circuit court brought there by original process may be reexamined and reversed or affirmed in this Court, upon a writ of error, and where the cause is brought into this Court upon a writ of error issued under that section, and all the proceedings are regular, and no question is presented in the record for revision, it follows by the express words of the section that the judgment of the court must be affirmed. Beyond question the record in this case exhibits every fact required by the section to give this Court jurisdiction of the cause, and in strict compliance with the terms of the act. The action was originally brought in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, and the record shows a sufficient declaration duly filed in court -- a proper and valid issue between the parties -- a perfect finding by the jury upon the issue joined, and a regular judgment on the verdict, which was final unless reversed, and certainly these are all the requisites of a record, according to the requirements of the twenty-second section of the Judiciary Act, to entitle a party to retain the judgment which has been given in his favor. Minor v. Tillotson, 1 How. 287; Stevens v. Gladding, 19 How. 64; Lathrop v. Judson, 19 How. 66. It is only when the special verdict is ambiguous or imperfect or when it finds only the evidence of facts, and not the facts themselves, or finds but a part of the facts in issue and is silent as to others, that this Court can regard the finding as a mistrial and order a venire de novo. Barnes v. Williams, 11 Wheat. 415; Carrington v. Pratt, 18 How. 63; Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. 484.
we are unable to discover error in any part of the proceedings.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.