Summary

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Coughran v. Bigelow — Opinion of the Court

Ct. 478, where it was held that since the act of congress of June 1, 1872 (17 Stat. 197) , re-enacted in section 914 of the Revised Statutes, courts of the United States are required to conform, as near as may be, in questions of 'practice, pleadings, and forms and modes of proceeding' to those existing in the courts of the state within which the trial is had, and a judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, ordering a peremptory nonsuit, in pursuance of a state statute, was upheld.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Coughran v. Bigelow — Opinion of the Court

That contract provided, indeed, that the vendors should execute and deliver a proper deed, but also provided that the title should not pass until the deferred payments were made. To construe the bond as compelling a conveyance before such payments were made would deprive the vendors of the security given them by retaining the title, and also of their stipulated right to forfeit the cash payment and rescind the sale, if the payments were not made as provided in the contract.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of George Shiras, Jr. George Shiras, Jr. Coughran v. Bigelow — Opinion of the Court

That the cases above cited which held that the circuit court of the United States had no authority to order peremptory nonsuits were based, not upon a constitutional right of a plaintiff to have the verdict of a jury, even if his evidence was insufficient to sustain his case, but upon the absence of authority, whether statutory or by a rule promulgated by this court, is shown by the recent case of Central Transp.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature