470-471 Mil. &. 8t. P. Ry. Co. a Kellogg, 857 606-607 Russell. Place, 471-474 474-476 46 477 Stark. Starr, 214 258 607-610 259 610 215 216 276 610-611 N. J. Mut. Life Ins. Co. a. Baker, 268 277 611-614 498 Clark . Hancock, 494-495 The Margaret," Allore. Jewell, 500-501 Eyster. Centennial Board of F., 146 619-620 Erskine. Milwaukee & St. Paul 188 298 899 800 801 802 514 Davis . Crouch, 263 631-638 Comra, of Johnson Co... Thayer, 183 264 638-641 153 668-671 283 671 284 672 Goddard v. Ordway, 285 672-678 68 285 673-676 Casey v. Galli, 286 676-679 44 287 679-680 44 46 134 64 185 136 802 803 804 216 216 217 218 219 182 188 184 804 806 807 237 238 168 169 170 807 219 220 221 229 C. & A. R. R. Co. v. Turrill, C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Turrill, P. Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. . Turrill, 288 598-596 Ct. Mut. Life Ins. Co. a. Schwenk, 294 718-722 Ches. &. O. R. R. Co. a Virginia, 810 292 696-699 293 699-701 294 701-704 179 704-707 180 707-710 181 710-711 211 711 Pike. Wassell, 212 712-718 212 713-715 THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1876. 111] ISAAC S. HURST, Plff. in Err. GEORGE M. WHEELER, Plff. in Err., [1 V. D. M. HOLLINGSWORTH. (See S. C., Reporter's ed., 111.) Docketing cause. It is not necessary to docket a cause twice, because it was brought to this court both by a writ of error and an appeal, and neither the appeal nor the writ of error will be dismissed; but when this court hears the cause, it will determine whether it is properly here, and will proceed accordingly. [No. 866.] Argued Nov. 13, 1876. Decided Nov. 13, 1876. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United The case is fully stated by the court. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court: Hurst, the plaintiff below, being in doubt whether his case was one to be brought here by appeal or by writ of error, took the precaution of suing out a writ of error, and obtaining also the allowance of an appeal. At the proper time he filed a transcript of the record, and the cause was docketed by the clerk as upon a writ of error; thereupon the defendant moved to docket and dismiss the appeal. Hurst now appears and asks leave to docket his appeal. The defendant does not object to this, but, treating it as an election for Hurst to proceed here upon the appeal, moves to dismiss the writ of error. was These motions are all denied. There was but one action in the court below, and there is but one record. When the transcript of that record was brought here by Hurst, his cause docketed. It is not necessary to enter it twice, because, out of abundant caution and to guard against a possible chance of dismissal, he has brought it here in two ways. He has but one cause; and, when we come to examine it, we will determine whether it is properly here by appeal or writ of error, and proceed accordingly. V. JOHN SEDGWICK, Assignee of Frederick S. (See S. C., Reporter's ed., 1-3.) Where an objection was not made in the court below, it is too late to make it in this court. [No. 103.] Argued Nov. 17, 1876. Decided Nov. 20, 1876. In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Suit was brought by the defendant in error for work and labor, and for money advanced, etc., in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Judgment was given for the plaintiff and affirmed upon appeal by the circuit court, whereupon the defendant sued out this writ of error. The case is sufficiently stated by the court. Messrs. Thomas M. Wheeler and Goodrich, for plaintiff in error. Messrs. F. N. Bangs, C. W. Bangs, T. M. North and P. Phillips, for defendant in error. We find no error in this record. To say the least, there was some evidence before the jury tending to prove the items of the account upon which the suit was brought, and the court, therefore, properly refused to instruct the jury to find for the defendant. The jury were not instructed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of $26,458.90 at all events, but only in case all the questions in dispute were found in his favor. That there was no controversy as to the amount of the recovery, if the other questions were settled in favor of the plaintiff, is evident from the fact that a witness was called, who, without objection, furnished the jury a calculation of interest upon the several items of the account as |