HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0431 and id is 1 raw text is: WORTHINGTON V. MASON.
WORTHIN GTON V. MASON.
1. No error is committed in refusing a prayer for instructions consisting of a
series of propositions, presented as an entirety, if any of them should not
be given to the jury.
2. When error is assigned upon the instructions given and those refused, the
bill of exceptions must set forth so much of the evidence as tends to prove
the facts, out of which the question is raised to which the instructions
apply.
3. Where, therefore, the bill of exceptions embodies only the instructions given
and those refused, this court will not reverse the judgment.
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
This was an action brought by Martha W. Mason against
Edward T. Worthington and Isaac M. Worthington, adminis-
trators of Elisha Worthington, deceased, to recover for work
and labor done and services rendered to the intestate. The
jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,000,
for which there was judgment, and the administrators sued out
this writ of error.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Ir. Augustus H. Garland for the plaintiffs in error.
.INr Albert Pike, Mr. Albert N. iSutton, and .Dr. Luther iH.
Pike for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE MmILER delivered the opinion of the court.
The errors assigned in this case relate solely to prayers for
instructions refused by the court and to exceptions to its
charge. The bill of exceptions shows a paper signed by the
defendants' counsel, in which the court is asked to affirm a
series of propositions of law as governing the case, seven in
number. They were presented as a whole, refused as a whole,
and excepted to in the same manner. If any one of them was
rightfully rejected no error was committed, because it was not
the duty of the court to do any thing more than pass upon the
prayer as an entirety. Beaver v. Taylor et al., 93 U. S. 46;
Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 id. 297. We shall presently
see why there is no error in the rejection of this prayer.
Oct. 1879.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0431&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)