British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co, 139 U.S. 222 (1891).
Search
British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co, 139 U.S. 222 (1891). Book View Copy Cite
British Queen Mining Company
v.
Baker Silver Mining Company
169.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 16, 1891.
139 U.S. 222
Mr. James B. Reilly for plaintiff in error., Mr. A. JE. 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.
Puller.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Chief Justice Puller

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.