18 FEDERAL iusromnn. i V 
assailing creditors, but were "left in" the Hofheimers, and the com-
plainantsin their suit having established a lien upon it from the fil-
ing of their bill, the fund so intercepted by this suit must be disposed
. of in accordance with the rules laid down by the Virginia. supreme
court of appeals in Wallace v. Treakle, 27 Grat. 479. I will so de-
cree.
Hruus, by her Guardian ad litem. v. Cnicaeo, M. & Sr. P. Br. Co}
i (Circuit Court, 1). Minnesota. February 14, 1885.)
1. Pmorrcm m Cmoorr COURT—MOTION ron New TnrA1.—Sa*r·rLm1> Casa.
As no writ of error lies to the action of a circuit court in granting or over-
ruling a motion for a new trial, and the only use of a case settled or stated in
the state court is to prepare the case for review in an appellate court, a motion
for a new trial may be heard in the circuit court without such settled case.
2. SAME--Aiieumanr Barone Ciacurr Jusrrcr: ar Wasn1NeroN—JunemmNr,
wasn Rmmeiznn. ~
Although a circuit justice who has tried a case while on the circuit may
hear argument on a motion for a new trial in Washington, he cannot there,
without consent of the parties, render a judgment setting aside the one entered
in the circuit court, but the motion may he continued from time to time until
he can attend the court and make the necessary order.
3. SAME—VERD1C'I:—EVIDENCE—CONTRIBUTORY Naonieancm. '
Evidence of contributory negligence held sufficient to justify setting aside
verdict for plaintiff.
Motion for a New Trial.
O’Brlen, Eller tt O’Brten, and I. V. D. Heard, for plaintiff.
J. W. Cary, W. H. Norris, and D. S. Wagg, for defendant.
MILLER, Justice. On this motion I am aided by liberal briefs of
counsel on both sides. The case was tried before me at St. Paul in
July, 1884, and judgment rendered on a verdict in favor of the plain-
tiff, An order was made under section 987 of the United States Re-
vised Statutes, giving the defendant 42 days to file a petition for a new
trial, which has been done. Neither party took any exceptions to the
‘ ruling of the court on the trial, and I am quite sure that no injustice
was done the defendant in the course of the court. The question to
be considered now is whether the verdict and judgment should be set
aside because the former is not suiiiciently supported by the evidence.
Two questions of fact were controverted before the jury, viz., was
the injury to plaintiff the result of the negligence of defendant’s serv-
ants in charge of a car which struck the sleigh in which plaintiff was
crossing the track of defendant? and if this is established, were plain-
tiif and those in charge of the sleigh guilty of suchcontributory neg-
ligence aswould defeat the right to recover? As regards the first
of these, while the evidence of the plaintiff was rather weak, there
ilteported by Robertson Howard, Esq., of the St. Paul Bar.