British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (1891)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (1891)British Queen Mining Company v. Baker Silver Mining Company
No. 169
Argued March 13, 1891
Decided March 16, 1891
139 U.S. 222
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Syllabus
There being no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, and the findings of fact by the court being general, the record raises no question open to revision.
The case is stated in the opinion. Argument was begun on behalf of the plaintiff in error, but the Court, on examining the record, declined to hear further argument.
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (1891) British Queen Mining Company v. Baker Silver Mining Company No. 169 Argued March 13, 1891 Decided March 16, 1891 139 U.S. 222 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus There being no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, and the findings of fact by the court being general, the record raises no question open to revision. The case is stated in the opinion. Argument was begun on behalf of the plaintiff in error, but the Court, on examining the record, declined to hear further argument. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court. This case was tried by the circuit court without a jury, and under §§ 649, 700, Rev.Stat., the finding must be "either general or special." It cannot be both. Here there was a general finding. The record contains a bill of exceptions, but no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial of the cause were thereby duly presented, and although, after reciting the evidence, it is therein stated that "the court thereafter and during the said term made the following findings of fact and judgment thereon," which is followed by an opinion of the court assigning reasons for its conclusions, this cannot be treated as a special finding enabling us to determine whether the facts found support the judgment, nor can the general finding be disregarded. Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250; Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Norris v. Jackson, 9 Page 139 U. S. 223 Wall. 125; Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285; Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576. The record raises no questions open to revision by us, and the judgment is Affirmed.
Search This Case
