TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Borderland Coal Co. v. Imperial Coal Co.

Borderland Coal Co. v. Imperial Coal Co., 7 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 3, 1925
Docket
No. 4280
Citations
7 F.2d 1164 Ohio Law. Abs. 272

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM

The Imperial Coal Sales Co. brought this action in the District Court against the Borderland Coal Sales Co. alleging that the latter company had bought two consignments of coal and had ordered same shipped to a consignee in Illinois. The Imperial Co. had shipped part of this order and consignee refused to pay for same and denied the existance of any contract between itself and the Imperial Co.

At the close of the evidence the Borderland Co. moved for a directed verdict, which motion was overruled by the court, but no exception was taken.

No exception was taken to the general charge of court, nor were any separate exceptions taken to refuse to charge on any one request; but there was a general exception to the refusal of the court to charge on all the requests, and only requests 3, 4, and 5 are exhibited in the record. Judgment was for the Imperial Co. and the Borderland Co. prosecuted error. The Appeals Court held:

1. An appellate court can consider only errors to which objections were made and exceptions taken in the trial court, except in criminal cases, where federal courts of review, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to prevent miscarriage of justice, sometimes notice error to which no objection or exceptions were taken.

2. Where no exceptions were taken to general charge nor separate exception taken as to refusal to charge any one request, although there was a general exception to the refusal to give all requests, a reviewing court cannot consider alleged errors in the charge nor general exception to refusal to give all requests.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1949: 119492026peak 1949 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Novick v. Gouldsberry173 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1949)

Most recent

  1. Novick v. Gouldsberry173 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1949)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list