Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co.

British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (1891)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1891-03-16
Topic
bankruptcy

139 U.S. 222 (1891) BRITISH QUEEN MINING COMPANY v. BAKER SILVER MINING COMPANY. No. 169. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 13, 1891.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
39 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Findings by the Court Where a case is tried by the court without a jury, the finding must be either general or special and cannot be both; a general finding stands as the finding of the court. 139 U.S. at 223
  2. Civil Procedure — Appellate Review — Bills of Exception Rulings of the court made in the progress of a trial are not open to appellate revision unless duly presented by exceptions in a bill of exceptions. 139 U.S. at 223
  3. Civil Procedure — Special Findings A recital in a bill of exceptions of the evidence and a statement that the court made findings of fact and judgment thereon, followed by an opinion assigning reasons for its conclusions, cannot be treated as a special finding enabling the appellate court to determine whether the facts found support the judgment, nor may the general finding be disregarded. 139 U.S. at 223
139 U.S. 222 (1891)

BRITISH QUEEN MINING COMPANY
v.
BAKER SILVER MINING COMPANY.

No. 169.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 13, 1891. Decided March 16, 1891. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

Mr. James B. Reilly for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A.H. Wintersteen and Mr. Wayne McVeagh filed a brief for defendant in error. Mr. E.T. Wells, Mr. R.T. McNeal and Mr. John G. Taylor also filed a brief for same.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was tried by the Circuit Court, without a jury, and under §§ 649 and 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 *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.