Case Name: CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO. v. BOMBERGER
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1904-05-10
Citations: 130 F. 884
Docket Number: No. 1,058
Parties: CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO. v. BOMBERGER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 130
Pages: 884–884

Head Matter:
CHICAGO TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO. v. BOMBERGER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
May 10, 1904.)
No. 1,058.
1. Eebob — Assignments of Ebboe.
An assignment of error that the verdict is contrary to law is too general to be considered.
2. Same — Setting Out Wbit fob Delay — Damages on Affirmance.
Where it is apparent, from the fact that the record presents no question for decision by the appellate court, that a writ of error was sued out for delay, the Circuit Court of Appeals will award damages on affirmance, as authorized by rule 28 (90 Fed. cxix, 31 C. C. A. cxix). ,
? 2. See Costs, vol. 13, Cent. Dig. §§ 983, 986, 987.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.
Jesse B. Barton and John B. Peterson, for plaintiff in error.
Robert W. McBride, for defendant in error.
Before JENKINS and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action for.personal injuries. The errors assigned are nine in number. The 1st, 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th assignments challenge the action of the court below upon several grounds, and are dependent upon the evidence submitted at the trial, but that evidence is not preserved by any bill of exception, and therefore they cannot be considered. The fourth assignment, that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law, is altogether too general, and nothing preserved in the record enables us to consider it.
The writ of error, as we cannot but think, was sued out for purposes of delay. It is not otherwise conceivable that the writ of error should be sued out, when the plaintiff in error must have known that no question could, upon the record, be presented to the court for its decision. We are not disposed to encourage frivolous appeals. It is a case calling for the application of the second paragraph of rule 28 (90 Fed. cxix, 31 C. C. A. cxix), and the judgment is affirmed, with 10 per cent, damages upon the amount of the judgment, in addition to interest. Affirmed.