Baltimore & Potomac Railway Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 72, 86. It is now objected that to permit a recovery for a pecuniary loss as covered in the instructions would allow the infant plaintiff to recover compensation for his time before as well as after he has reached his majority, and that during infancy his father is entitled to recover any wages be might earn. If the defendant wished the charge modified in this respect he should have called the attention of the court directly to this feature. The charge in this respect was general, permitting a recovery for a pecuniary loss directly resulting from the injury. It would be very unfair to the trial court to keep such an objection in abeyance and urge it for the first time in an appellate tribunal. Furthermore, an objection is taken to the charge as to mental suffering, past and future. It is objected that this instruction permits a recovery for future humiliation and embarrassment of mind and feelings because of the loss of the leg. But we find no objection to the charge as given in this respect. The court said: "The jury are to consider mental suffering, past and future, found to be the necessary consequence of the loss of his leg." Where such mental suffering is a direct and necessary consequence of the physical injury, we think the jury may consider it. It is not unlikely that the court might have given more ample instruction in this respect, had it been requested so to do. But what was said limited the compensation to the direct consequences of the physical injury. An instruction of this character was sustained in Washington & Georgetown Railroad Co. v. Harmon, 147 U. S. 571, 584. That there might be more or less continuous mental suffering directly resulting from a maiming of the plaintiff's person in an injury of this character was probable, and where the jury was limited to that which necessarily resulted from the injury we think there can be no valid objection or just ground of complaint. Of a charge of this character, in Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U. S. 22, 26, Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for this court, said: "But the instruction given only authorized them, in assessing damages for the injury caused by the defendants to the plaintiff, to take into consideration 'his bodily and mental pain and suffering, both taken together' ('but not his mental pain alone'), and such as 'inevitably and necessarily resulted from the original injury.' The action is for an injury to the person of an intelligent being; and when the injury, whether caused by willfulness or by negligence, produces mental as well as bodily anguish and suffering, independently of any extraneous consideration or cause, it is impossible to exclude the mental suffering in estimating the extent of the personal injury for which compensation is to be awarded. The instruction was in accord with the opinions of this court in similar cases." We find no error in the charge in this respect. As to the alleged error in charging the jury that damages could not be recovered in excess of the sum claimed in the declaration, the court was careful to say to the jury that the sum claimed should not be taken as a criterion to act upon, but that it was only a limit beyond which they could not go. We cannot see how the plaintiff in error was prejudiced by this instruction. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. 202 U.S. Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM APRIL 17 TO MAY 28, 1906. No. 253. WISHKAH BOOM COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. THE UNITED STATES. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argued April 25 and 26, 1906. Decided May 14, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U. S. 173; United States v. Krall, 174 U. S. 385; McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661; Act of August 13, 1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866, sec. 1; United States v. Sayward, 160 U. S. 493, 498. Mr. Austin E. Griffiths for appellant. The Attorney General and Mr. Milton D. Purdy, Assistant to the Attorney General for appellee. No. 631. W. E. TRENCHARD ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. F. KELL ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Motion to dismiss submitted April 30, 1906. Decided May 14, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687; United States v. Rider, 163 U. S. 132, 139; Chamberlin v. Peoria &c. Ry. Co., 118 Fed. Rep. 32, and cases cited. Mr. Williamson W. Fuller and Mr. Herbert Noble for appellants. Mr. F. H. Busbee and Mr. Robert M. Hughes for appellees. No. 216. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, APPELLANT, V. THE LAKE SHORE AND MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. Argued April 10 Opinions Per Curiam, Etc. 202 U.S. and 11, 1906. Decided May 21, 1906. Decree affirmed with costs by a divided court. (Mr. Justice Holmes took no part in the consideration of this case.) The Attorney General, Mr. John G. Carlisle and Mr. L. A. Shaver for appellant. Mr. Adelbert Moot, Mr. George C. Greene, Mr. George W. Wall, Mr. George F. Brownell, Mr. Frederick W. Stevens and Mr. Edgar J. Rich for appellees. No. 249. THOMAS C. GUTIERREZ ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO EX REL. THOMAS J. CURRAN ET AL. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Submitted April 25, 1906. Decided May 21, 1906. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Albright v. Sandoval, 200 U. S. 9. Mr. W. B. Childers for appellants. Mr. Frank W. Clancy for appellees. No. 685. FRANCISCO DONES, APPELLANT, v. JOSE URRUTIA, WARDEN OF THE PENITENITARY OF PORTO RICO. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Porto Rico. Submitted May 14, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. Per Curiam. Final order affirmed with costs. Act April 12, 1900, 31 Stat. 77, c. 191, secs. 33, 34, 35, 15; Ortega v. Lara, ante, p. 339; Perez v. Fernandez, ante, p. 80; Porto Rican Laws and Code of Civil Procedure, 1904, pp. 103, 104, 110; Ex parte Ward, 173 U. S. 452, 454; United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Company, 176 U. S. 211, 214. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney and Mr. J. S. Flannery for appellant. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for appellee. No. Original. Ex parte: IN THE MATTER OF JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS, PETITIONER. Submitted May 21, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. Per Curiam. Motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari denied. Jones v. Montague, 202 U.S. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari. 194 U. S. 147; Security Insurance Company v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Company, 194 U. S. 324. Mr. Holmes Conrad for petitioner. Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari from April 17 to May 28, 1906. No. 653. JOHN B. ELLISON ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. THE UNITED STATES. April 23, 1906. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied. Mr. Edward S. Hatch for petitioners. The Attorney General and The Solicitor General for respondent. No. 673. S. W. TYSON ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. FRANK E. CREELMAN. April 23, 1906. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William A. Gunter for petitioners. Mr. Robert E. Steiner for respondent. No. 680. J. W. FARRIOR, PETITIONER, v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES. April 23, 1906. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Mr. William L. Martin and Mr. William A. Gunter for petitioner. Mr. Horace Stringfellow and Mr. Robert E. Steiner for respondent. No. 683. JOHN B. MAYER ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. MARGARET H. MANDEVILLE. April 23, 1906. Petition for a writ of April 23, 1906. |