From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzgerald v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Apr 28, 1928
26 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1928)

Opinion

Nos. 1372, 1373.

Submitted April 25, 1928.

Decided April 28, 1928.

Action between Thomas J. Fitzgerald, Sr., and W.H. Dodson and another. After refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial, the party first named applies for writs of error. Applications denied.

Thomas J. Fitzgerald, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

C.P. Henry, of Washington, D.C., for respondents.


In these cases the application for writs of error is based on the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial.

It is settled law in this court that the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a new trial is not reviewable. Columbia Ry. Co. v. Cruit, 20 App. D.C. 521; Price v. United States, 14 App. D.C. 391; Kelly v. Moore, 22 App. D.C. 9. Even where the motion for a new trial is based upon newly discovered evidence, the action of the trial court will not be disturbed, unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion. Mandes v. Midgett, 49 App. D.C. 139, 261 F. 1019.

It results that these applications must be denied.


Summaries of

Fitzgerald v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Apr 28, 1928
26 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1928)
Case details for

Fitzgerald v. Dodson

Case Details

Full title:FITZGERALD v. DODSON et al

Court:Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

Date published: Apr 28, 1928

Citations

26 F.2d 522 (D.C. Cir. 1928)

Citing Cases

Kenyon v. Youngman

The action of the court in overruling this motion is here assigned as error. It is settled law in this…

Imhoff v. Walker

Ruppert v. Ruppert, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 134 F.2d 497; McWilliams v. Shepard, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 127 F.2d…