James-Dickinson Farm Mortgage Co. v. Seimer

• Decision Date: 26 April 1926
• Docket Number: No. 3506.,3506.
• Citation: 12 F.2d 772
• Parties: JAMES-DICKINSON FARM MORTGAGE CO. et al. v. SEIMER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

12 F.2d 772 (1926)

JAMES-DICKINSON FARM MORTGAGE CO. et al. v. SEIMER.

No. 3506.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 5, 1926.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1926.

George F. Rearick, of Danville, Ill., for plaintiffs in error.

Walter T. Gunn, of Danville, Ill., for defendant in error.

Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an action for damages for deceit, brought in the state court and removed by plaintiffs in error to the court below. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, a jury being waived. No stipulation in writing waiving a jury was filed with the clerk, as required by section 649 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1587). Under section 700¹ of the Revised Statutes "the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial" may be reviewed when a stipulation, waiving a jury, has been filed with the clerk as provided in section 649, but not so when the jury is waived orally as in this case. In such case it is settled law that none of the questions decided at the trial can be re-examined on writ of error. Among the many cases so holding we may note the following: Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 5 S. Ct. 296, 28 L. Ed. 835; Spalding v. Manasse, 131 U. S. 65, 9 S. Ct. 649, 33 L. Ed. 86; County of Madison v. Warren, 106 U. S. 622, 2 S. Ct. 86, 27 L. Ed. 311; Erkel v. United States, 169 F. 623, 95 C. C. A. 151; Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Hicks Co., 218 F. 310, 134 C. C. A. 106; Illinois Surety Co. v. United States, 229 F. 527, 143 C. C. A. 595; United States v. National City Bank (C. C. A.) 281 F. 754.

Plaintiffs in error urged upon the argument, and contend in their briefs, that the trial court erred in its rulings upon the statute of limitations and upon the applicability and validity of the Texas statute, set forth in the declaration, authorizing the assessment of exemplary damages. These were rulings in the progress of the trial, which can only be reviewed when the written waiver is filed, as provided in section 649. Some of the cases hold that, when no written stipulation is filed, the only question that can be presented in this court is whether the declaration is sufficient to sustain the judgment; others hold "no questions are open to review on error, except they arise on the process, pleading, or judgment." But plaintiffs in error have not put themselves in position to raise any question upon these. The statute authorizing writs of error requires that there be annexed to and...