Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 W. Va. 171

Snodgrass v. Copenhaver

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1890

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1890-11-25

<p>Apiusat, — W AI VISE.</p> <p>Where a case is tried by a jury and á verdict rendered and a motion made to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, and such motion is overruled by the trial-court, the record must show that exception was taken or objection made to the overruling of such motion, or the appellate court will deem all errors to have been waived.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently November 1919

2 state decisions

Relies on Shrewsbury v. Miller · Danks v. Rodeheaver · State v. Phares

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holt, Judge:

¶1This was an action of ejectment tried in the Circuit Court of "Wetzel county with verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. During the progress of the trial various exceptions were taken to rulings of the court and noted on the record; and a motion was made by defendants Copen-haver and Barkus to the court below to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant them anew trial which motion the court overruled. The record does uot show that any objection was made or exception taken to such rulings therefore this Court can not look into the assignment of errors contained in the bill of exceptions. State v. Hollins, 31 W. Va. 363 (6 S. E. Rep 923); Brown v. Brown, 29 W. Va. 777 (2 S. E. Rep. 808); Congrove v. Burdett, 28 W. Va. 220; Danks v. Rodeheaver, 26 W. Va. 274; State v. Thompson, Id. 149; State v. Phares, 24 W. Va. 657; Riddle v. Core, 21 W. Va. 530; Shrewsbury v. Miller, 10 W. Va. 115. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.

¶2AeRIRMED.

/34/wva/171 · .json · Public domain