Consolidated Coal Co. of St. Louis v. Polar Wave Ice Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1901
• Docket Number: 1,435.
• Citation: 106 F. 798
• Parties: CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. OF ST. LOUIS v. POLAR WAVE ICE CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

106 F. 798

CONSOLIDATED COAL CO. OF ST. LOUIS v. POLAR WAVE ICE CO.

No. 1,435.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 25, 1901

Charles W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

J. D Johnson (Eben Richards, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by the Consolidated Coal Company of St Louis, the plaintiff in error, to recover a balance in the sum of $6,759.63, which was alleged to be due to it from the Polar Wave Ice Company, the defendant in error for a certain quantity of coal said to have been sold and delivered to the defendant in error. The defendant below denied that it was indebted to the plaintiff as alleged in its complaint, and pleaded serveral defenses to the cause of action, which need not be stated in detail. The parties to the cause subsequently filed a stipulation waiving a jury and consenting to try the issues joined before the court. The case was so tried, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff below in the sum of $5,016.82, the defendant below having by its answer interposed several counter-claims, which the trial court held to be well founded. Although the trial judge rendered a written opinion in the case, which is found in the record but does not form a part of the bill of exceptions, he did not make a special finding of facts, but contented himself with a general finding. This court has repeatedly held that when an action at law is tried without the intervention of a jury, and the finding is general, no questions are open for review on a writ of error, except such as may have been raised in the progress of the trial by exceptions taken to the admission or exclusion of evidence. It has also held that it will not treat an opinion of the trial court as a special finding of facts, which was obviously not intended as such, although the opinion may state certain of the facts which were developed at the trial. When a case is tried before the court, counsel cannot raise questions of law which will be reviewed on appeal by tendering requests for instructions and obtaining a ruling thereon, as may be done when a case is tried to a jury. If the exceptions taken during the progress of the trial relative to the admission or exclusion of evidence do not present all of the questions of law which counsel desire to have reviewed, they should make a seasonable application to the trial court to have the facts found specially, which the court in its discretion may do, and incorporate the finding in a bill of exceptions. When such a finding is made and duly incorporated in a bill of exceptions, an appellate court is then in a position to determine whether the facts as found warranted the judgment. But under no circumstances will this court examine the record with a view of...