
    PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. REPINE.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    May 9, 1921.)
    No. 2630.
    Appeal and error &wkey;>273(5) — Charge cannot be reviewed, unless exception was taken to the portion objected to.
    Objections to the instructions of the trial judge on the question whether the movement for repairs of the car with a defective coupler or brake was per se negligence cannot be reviewed, where no exception was taken at the trial to any part of the charge which bore on that matter.
    In Error to District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Charles P. Orr, Judge.
    Action by Daniel E. Repine against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    S. Y. Rossiter, of Erie, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
    Anderson, Mathews & Wall, of Youngstown, Ohio, Henry W. Brush, of Buffalo, N. Y., and Reed, Wait & Spofford, of Erie, Pa., for defendant in error.
    Before BUEEINGTON, WOOEEEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The substantial question argued at bar in this case was the instructions of the trial judge on the question whether the movement for repairs of the car with a defective coupler or brake was per se negligence. On closer examination we find no exception was taken at the trial to any part of the charge which bore on that matter. Consequently there is no foundation on which error can be assigned.

As none of the remaining assignments show error, the judgment below is affirmed.  