« ForrigeFortsett »
appropriate questions to the jury, or by his own findings where the trial is without a jury, ascertain so far as is practicable all the facts both as to liability and damages necessary on any theory of the law to enable the court to make the proper final disposition of the case, unless in the opinion of the court such a course is inexpedient under the circumstances of the case. When special questions are submitted to a jury, the judge may or may not take a general verdict, and may report the case on the answers of the jury or make such other order thereon as the judge may deem proper. A judge reporting to the full court for its determination a question as to the correctness of any rulings of law made by him at a trial, or on a motion for a new trial, shall have the power to make in any proper case a provision in the report that, if his rulings were correct, a judgment or decree shall be entered for the party in whose favor the rulings were made, and that, if his rulings were wrong, the judgment or decree shall be entered in accordance with such rulings as he ought to have made.
SEC. 3. The supreme judicial court, upon any appeal, bill of exceptions, report, or other proceeding in the nature of an appeal in any civil action, suit or proceeding, shall have all the powers of amendment of the court below; and whenever exceptions have been taken to the exclusion of evidence, or where the alleged error arises from the omission at the trial of some fact which, under the circumstances of the case, may subsequently be proved without involving any question for a jury, and without substantial injustice to either party, the supreme judicial court shall have full discretionary authority to cause such further testimony to be taken as it deems necessary, either by oral examination in court, by reference, by affidavit or by deposition, and the court shall have power to render any judgment and to make any order that ought to have been made upon the whole case.
The following are Massachusetts decisions on this subject, which we owe to Frank W. Grinnell, Esq., Secretary Legislative Comm.; Massachusetts Bar Association:
Randall vs. Peerless Motor Co., 212 Mass. 352, 391.
Archer vs. Eldridge, Ibid. 323, 327.
IN RELATION TO THE FEES AND MILEAGE OF UNITED STATES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. The United States marshal in each district shall send writs and process delivered to him, by mail to the deputy in whose county the defendant, or defendants reside, or may be found, with instructions to serve the same, and no mileage shall be charged for the service thereof except for the number of miles actually and necessarily travelled by such deputy in making service thereof.
The deputy so making service shall make the return as required by law and send the same with the writ or process to the marshal by mail.
In cases where service of writs or process is made in the manner herein provided the marshal shall be entitled to and receive a fee of fifty cents for each person served in addition to the fees now allowed by law.
SEC. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after the first day of January next succeeding its passage and approval.
INJUNCTIONS ISSUED BY COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES INVOLVING LABOR DISPUTES.
NOVEMBER, 1902, TO JANUARY 1, 1913.
1902 (1) Nov.
8. C. C. D. Nebraska, 120 Fed., 102, Union Pacific R. R. Co. vs. Ruef et al.
1903 (2) Apr.
1. C. C. E. D. Mo., 121 Fed. 564, Wabash R. R. 1 Co. vs. Hannahan et al.
(3) May 11. Mobile & Ohio R. R. vs. E. E. Clark et al.
(4) June 22. C. C. D. Minn., 123 Fed. 636, Knudsen et al vs. Benn et al.
(5) Sept. 27. Newport Iron & Brass Foundry vs. Moulders' Union.
1. C. C. N. D. Cal., 139 Fed. 71, Loewe et al vs.
(8) July 10. C. C. S. D. Iowa, A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
(9) July 15. 139 Fed. 693, Kemmerer vs. Haggerty.
(10) Jan. 30. (11) Nov.
7. C. C. N. D. Cal., 149 Fed. 577, Hammond Lumber Co. vs. Sailors' Union of the Pacific. (13) Dec. 11. C. C. E. D. Wis., 150 Fed. 155, Allis-Chalmers Co. vs. Iron Moulders' Union 125, et al.
Pope Motor Car Co. vs. Stitart.
C. C. N. D. Ohio, W. D., 150 Fed. 148, Pope
1907 (14) July 2. Central District & Printing Tel. Co. vs. Kent. (15) Sept. 26. C. C. N. D. W. Va., 156 Fed. 173, National Telephone Co. of W. Va. vs. Kent.
7. C. C. D. Mont., 156 Fed. 809, Rocky Mountain Bell Tel. Co. vs. Mont. Federation of Labor. 17. C. C. A. 8th Circuit, 156 Fed. 357, Shine vs. Fox Bros. Mfg. Co.
21. C. C. S. D. Ohio, 156 Fed. 72, A. R. Barnes & Co. vs. Berry. (19) Dec. 13. C. C. W. D. N. Y., 158 Fed. 690, D. L. & W. R. R. Co. vs. Switchmen's Union of N. A.
7. C. C. D. Nev., 159 Fed. 500, Goldfield Con. Mines Co. vs. Goldfield Miners' Union 220, et al.
9. C. C. A., 7th Cir., 166 Fed. 45, Iron Moulders' Union 125 of Milwaukee vs. Allis-Chalmers Co.
(21) May 25. C. C. N. D. W. Va., 170 Fed. 463, Carter et al vs. Fortney et al.
Sept. 9. C. C. N. D. W. Va., 172 Fed. 722, Carter vs.
(22) Sept. 21. C. C. N. D. W. Va., 172 Fed. 963, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. vs. Mitchell.
C. C. S. D. N. Y., 180 Fed. 896, Irving et al vs.
(24) Apr. . C. C. A., 8th Cir., 187 Fed. 415, Kolley et al vs.
Robinson et al.
(25) Oct. 23. C. C. E. D. Ill., 190 Fed. 910, Illinois Central R. R. vs. International Assn. of Mechanics.
C. C. N. D., 189 Fed. 714, Loewe et al vs. Cal.
(26) June 18. D. C. N. D. New York, 197 Fed. 221, Alumi
num Casting Co. vs. Local No. 84 of International Moulders' Union of North America et al.
NOTE BY MR. EMERY.-The unnumbered cases refer to other proceedings with respect to enumerated injunctive orders; such as a modification of, or an appeal from, the same.
The petition and brief in the Slocum case, copies of which were annexed to the report presented to the Association as Schedules H-1 and H-2, respectively, occupied so much space that it is impracticable to print them in the Annual Report. The Secretary will furnish a copy of the annual report of the committee containing these documents to any member requesting the same, until the supply of said reports is exhausted.