City of Goldfield, Colo. v. Roger
| Decision Date | 23 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 4831,4832. |
| Citation | 249 F. 39 |
| Parties | CITY OF GOLDFIELD, COLO., v. ROGER. ROGER v. CITY OF GOLDFIELD, COLO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. M Alter, of Victor, Colo. (Edward J. Boughton, of Victor Colo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error in No. 4831 and for defendant in error in No. 4832.
C. A Ballreich, of Pueblo, Colo. (W. L. Hartman, of Pueblo, Colo on the brief), for defendant in error in No. 4831 and for plaintiff in error in No. 4832.
Before SANBORN and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
These are writs of error to review a judgment at law tried to the court without a jury, both parties prosecuting writs of error.
The brief filed by counsel on behalf of the plaintiff in error in No. 4831 fails to set out the assignments of error upon which they rely, as required by rule 24 (150 F. xxxiii, 79 C.C.A. xxxiii) of this court. In City of Lincoln v. Sun Vapor Street Light Co., 59 F. 756, 8 C.C.A. 253, this court announced that the provisions of this rule, particularly in respect to assignments and specifications of error in briefs will be strictly enforced by the court. The opinion in that case was filed January 29, 1894, and has been enforced ever since. The judgment against the city must therefore be affirmed.
In No. 4832 the same result is reached. As hereinbefore stated, the case was tried to the court without a jury. No special findings were made by the court, nor did either of the parties request the court to make them. The rule of law is well settled in the national courts that in a cause tried to the court without a jury, where no special findings are made, and none requested, there is nothing to be reviewed by the appellate court.
The court filed an opinion in which it states certain facts, but facts recited in the opinion of the court cannot be treated as special findings in the cause. National Bank of Commerce v. First National Bank, 61 F. 809, 10 C.C.A. 87; Hinkley v. City of Arkansas City, 69 F. 768, 16 C.C.A. 395; Insurance Co. v. International Trust Co., 71 F. 88, 17 C.C.A. 616; National Masonic, etc., Ass'n v. Sparks, 83 F. 225, 28 C.C.A. 399; Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Ass'n, 138 F. 381, 70 C.C.A. 521; Mason v. United States, 219 F. 547, 135 C.C.A. 315.
Aside from this, no exceptions were taken by the plaintiff at the trial to the judgment of the court. The only exception taken by the plaintiff was:
'To the findings of the court as to the amount due the plaintiff and to the order of judgment entered herein, so far as the amount in the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...Wis. 152, 182 N.W. 728; Keeley et al. v. Ophir, etc., Co., 8 Cir., 169 F. 598; Scholle v. Finnell, 173 Cal. 372, 159 P. 1179; Goldfield v. Roger, 8 Cir., 249 F. 39; Stock Growers' Finance Co. v. Hildreth, 30 Ariz. 505, 249 P. 71. If, at times, we have, in our discretion, ruled upon statemen......
-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...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 of the general finding for the plaintiff and judgment on such finding, the court notes the following exceptio......
-
Kendrick Coal & Dock Co. v. Com'r of Internal Revenue
...opinion to eke out the findings of fact. Crocker v. United States, 240 U. S. 74, 78, 36 S. Ct. 245, 60 L. Ed. 533; City of Goldfield, Colo., v. Roger, 249 F. 39 (C. C. A. 8); Highway Trailer Co. v. City of Des Moines, 298 F. 71 (C. C. A. 8); Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank, 20 F.(2d) 897 (C. C. ......
-
Hard & Rand v. Biston Coffee Co.
...for affirmance. Kinser v. United States (C. C. A.) 231 F. 856; Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co. (C. C. A.) 243 F. 517; City of Goldfield v. Roger (C. C. A.) 249 F. 39; Daly-West Mining Co. et al. v. Savage (C. C. A.) 253 F. Even if the last two "Errors Relied Upon" could be treated as specific......