Case Name: FERNWOOD & G. R. CO. v. BESSEMER COAL, IRON & LAND CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1914-03-24
Citations: 213 F. 33
Docket Number: No. 2596
Parties: FERNWOOD & G. R. CO. v. BESSEMER COAL, IRON & LAND CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 213
Pages: 33–33

Head Matter:
FERNWOOD & G. R. CO. v. BESSEMER COAL, IRON & LAND CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 24, 1914.)
No. 2596.
Appeal and Error (§ 204 )—Beception op Evidence—Failure to Object.
An assignment of error, based on the admission of evidence to which no objection was made, which was in support of a claim pleaded in plaintiff’s declaration, and where no special instruction was requested as to such demand, cannot be sustained.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1149, 1258-1272, 1274-1278, 1280, 1569; Dec. Dig. § 204. ]
In Error to the District Court of the" United States for the Southern District of Mississippi; Henry C. Niles, Judge.
Action at law by the Bessemer Coal, Iron & Land Company against the Fernwood & Gulf Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Marcellus Green and Garner W. Green, both of Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff in error.
Robert H. Thompson and J. H. Thompson, both of Jackson, Miss., for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to flats, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the rulings of the court on the admission of evidence in the course of the trial, nor any reversible error in the refusal to give the special instructions to the jury requested by the defendant below.
This disposes of all the assignments of error except the fourth, which is, "The court erred in permitting proof of the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy," as to which we find that the expenses of the plaintiff in looking after the matters in controversy were expressly included in the plaintiff's demand set forth in his declaration, that the evidence in relation thereto was admitted without objection, and that there was no special instruction asked in regard thereto; therefore the fourth assignment of error is not well taken.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.