Central Trust Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, v. Fidelity Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 6011. |
| Citation | 282 F. 233 |
| Parties | CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF DES MOINES, IOWA, v. FIDELITY TRUST CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. H. H. Piatt, of Kansas City, Mo. (Thomas R. Marks, of Kansas City, Mo., L. M. Grimes, of Des Moines, Iowa, and G. W. Duvall, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Justin D. Bowersock, of Kansas City, Mo. (Robert B. Fizzell and Guy V. Head, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER and MUNGER, District judges.
This cause was tried to the court, a jury having been waived by stipulation in writing. The trial judge made a general finding in favor of defendants, neither party having requested any special findings, and entered judgment accordingly.
The learned trial judge filed a memorandum opinion, but this cannot take the place of special findings. National Bank of Commerce v. First National Bank, 61 F. 809, 10 C.C.A. 87; Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Association, 138 F. 381, 70 C.C.A. 521; City of Goldfield v. Roger, 249 F. 39, 161 C.C.A. 99.
The only questions before us on this record are the exceptions taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence of defendants in error. In the assignment of errors plaintiff in error sets out four alleged errors in the admission of testimony, but the record shows that the only exception taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence offered by defendants in error is that set out in the first subdivision of the first assignment of error. We are therefore confined to the consideration of that assignment only.
The testimony excepted to and properly before us, is that the witness, when asked, 'In a general way what was that transaction?' answered, 'I loaned him $5,500 on the strength of these Sheehey papers as collateral' (the notes in controversy). Mr. Piatt: 'I object to the statement: 'On the strength of it as collateral.' ' The witness thereupon testified that he conducted the negotiations on behalf of the banks (the defendants). Thereupon the court overruled the objection. We fail to find any error in this ruling.
Nothing else being properly before the court, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...Bank of Com. v. First Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 61 F. 809; Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Assn. (C. C. A.) 138 F. 381; Central Tr. Co. v. Fidelity Tr. Co. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 233; Highway Trailer Co. v. Des Moines (C. C. A.) 298 F. 71; City of Goldfield v. Roger (C. C. A.) 249 F. 39. At the close o......
-
Hall v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...therefore no ruling of the court to be reviewed. Lahman et al. v. Burnes Nat. Bank (C.C.A. 8) 20 F.(2d) 897; Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co. et al. (C.C.A. 8) 282 F. 233. One of the defendant's experts was asked, on direct examination, whether certain doctors who had examined the in......
-
Swanson v. Continental Casualty Co.
...v. Beatrice Cemetery Ass'n, 138 F. 381, 70 C. C. A. 521; City of Goldfield v. Roger, 249 F. 39, 161 C. C. A. 99; Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co. (C. C. A.) 282 F. 233; Navajo County v. Mesmer (C. C. A.) 4 F. (2d) 821. In City of Goldfield, Colo., v. Roger, 249 F. 39, 40, 161 C. C. A......