The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ORIGINAL. The court stated the case as follows: — A petition was -filed in this court, by the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company, on the 8th of October, 1888, praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Honorable Nathaniel Shipman, District Judge of the District of Connecticut, assigned to hold, and who held, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern' District of New York, to settle a bill of exceptions according to the truth of the matters which took…
Read the full summary
ORIGINAL. The court stated the case as follows: — A petition was -filed in this court, by the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company, on the 8th of October, 1888, praying this court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Honorable Nathaniel Shipman, District Judge of the District of Connecticut, assigned to hold, and who held, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern' District of New York, to settle a bill of exceptions according to the truth of the matters which took place before him on the trial of an action at law in that court, brought by Theodore A. Blake against the Chateaugay Ore…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Blatchford
We are. of opinion that the writ of mandamus must issue. By rules 67 and 69 of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, which took effect on the first Monday of August, 1838, it is provided that, when exceptions to the opinion of the court are taken by either party on the trial of . a cause, he shall not be required to prepare his bill of exceptions át the trial, but shall merely reduce the exceptions to •writing, or the court will, on request, note' the point, and the bill of exceptions shall afterwards be drawn up, amended, and settled, under the following regulations: The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- NUDD v. Burrows, AssigneeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Jackson Ex Dem. Astor v. CraneSupreme Court of the United States · 1831
- Newcomb v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Mueller v. EhlersSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by103 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- St. Clair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Michigan Insurance Bank v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
98 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.