Case Name: EDGE MOOR BRIDGE WORKS v. FIELDS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1893-10-04
Citations: 58 F. 173
Docket Number: No. 51
Parties: EDGE MOOR BRIDGE WORKS v. FIELDS.
Judges: Before PULLER, Circuit Justice, GOFF, Circuit Judge, and SEYMOUR, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 58
Pages: 173–174

Head Matter:
EDGE MOOR BRIDGE WORKS v. FIELDS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
October 4, 1893.)
No. 51.
Appeal — Review--Motion eoh New Trial.
Action on a motion for a new trial Is not reviewable on writ of error in the circuit courts of appeals.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia.
At Law. Action by Lewis TSF. Fields against the Edge Moor Bridge Works to recover damages for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. On motion to dismiss or affirm.
Affirmed.
Statement by FULLER, Circuit Justice:
This was an action to recover damages for Injuries inflicted, as alleged, through the carelessness and negligence of defendant below, appellant here, which resulted on trial in a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment thereon after motion for new trial made and overruled.
No exception appeared to have been taken during the trial to evidence or instructions, nor was there any demurrer to evidence, or equivalent motion. Some days after judgment was entered, defendant renewed its motion to set the verdict aside and grant a- new trial, assigning as grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the court gave certain instructions, which were set forth. The motion was denied, and exception taken, and preserved by bill of exceptions. The case came before this court on motion to dismiss the writ of error, or affirm the judgment.
Edward S. Brown, for the motion.
T. J. Kirkpatrick, opposed.
Before PULLER, Circuit Justice, GOFF, Circuit Judge, and SEYMOUR, District Judge.

Opinion:
PULLER, Circuit Justice,
(after stating the facts.) The judgment is affirmed, on the authority of Railroad Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, 301; Reagan v. Aiken, 138 U. S. 109, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 283; Express Co. v. Malin, 132 U. S. 531, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 166; Fishburn v. Railway Co., 137 U. S. 60, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8; Improvement Co. v. Frari, 58 Fed. Rep. 171; and other cases.