Mason v. United States
| Decision Date | 04 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 4142 |
| Citation | 219 F. 547 |
| Parties | MASON et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Roy E Cubbage, of Des Moines, Iowa (Read & Read, of Des Moines Iowa, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
Sylvester R. Rush, of Omaha, Neb., for defendant in error.
Before CARLAND, Circuit Judge, and YOUMANS, District Judge.
This is an action at law to recover from Edward R. Mason, late clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa, certain moneys claimed to be due from him to the United States. A jury was duly waived in writing and the case tried to the court. After hearing the evidence and giving the case due consideration, the following judgment was rendered:
'On this day this cause came on for further hearing, plaintiff appearing by Sylvester R. Rush, its attorney, and the defendants by Read & Read and Roy E. Cubbage, their attorneys, and it is thereupon ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the United States of America have and recover of and from Edward R. Mason and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Md., the sum of $358.79, together with the costs of this action taxed at $ . . ., to which finding, judgment, and entering thereof both the plaintiff and the defendants and each of them in open court and at the time except.'
There were no requests for findings of fact, either general or special, by either party, nor any requests for declarations of law. The judgment above quoted is the only ruling of the court appearing in the record. The court filed a memorandum opinion which appears in the record, but it is what the trial court does, not its reasons therefor, which must form the basis of an assignment of error. It is stated in the record that in rendering the judgment herein the court refused to hold that the matters pleaded in counts 3, 4, and 5 of defendant's amended answer, constituted a good defense to the complaint of the plaintiff, and rendered judgment against the defendant for a sum which included the balance as shown by the evidence in the record not to have been disbursed by the defendant or turned over to or delivered by him to his successor in office, and that defendants excepted to this ruling. It is again stated that in rendering the judgment in this action the court included the balance testified to by the examiner as set out in certain equity cases and held that paragraph 3 of defendant's answer was not a good defense thereto, to which finding and holding the defendant excepted.
It plainly appears, however, that the only time the court ruled was when it entered the judgment, and, if when the court entered the judgment it did so by reason of certain views it had in regard to the law and evidence, it was too late after judgment to raise the question as to whether these views were correct or not, unless counsel had placed the court upon record before the end of the trial in regard to the same. In form there were no findings made by the court either general or special, unless we consider the judgment entered a general finding which seems to have been the view of the court and of counsel. Under the law this judgment, so far as it can be called a finding, was equivalent to the verdict of a jury and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...1 F.(2d) 307; Highway Trailer Co. v. City of Des Moines (C. C. A.) 298 F. 71; U. S. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. (C. C. A.) 270 F. 1; Mason v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 219 F. 547; Union Pac. v. Laughlin (C. C. A.) 245 F. 544; Seep v. Ferris-Haggarty Copper Min. Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 201 F. 893; Humphreys v......
-
Buskirk v. Red Buttes Land and Live Stock Company
...1 and 2. (Wallace v. Skinner, 15 Wyo. 233-251; Downing v. State, 10 Wyo. 373; Chosen Friends v. Otterson, et al., 7 Wyo. 89, 209 F. 31, 219 F. 547.) It is necessary that the bill show materiality of the charge complained of and not merely that it was wrong as an abstract proposition. (Jones......
-
Pennsylvania Co. v. United States
... ... Stockyards Co. (C.C.A. 8) 167 F. 126, 92 ... C.C.A. 578; National Surety Co. v. Railroad Co. (C.C.A. 6) ... 145 F. 34, 76 C.C.A. 19; Perkins & Co. v. Von Baumbach ... (C.C.A. 8) 185 F. 265, 107 C.C.A. 371; Pennsylvania Casualty ... Co. v. Whiteway (C.C.A. 9) 210 F. 782, 127 C.C.A. 332; Mason ... v. United States (C.C.A. 8) 219 F. 547, 135 C.C.A. 315; ... Burrows v. Niblack Co. (C.C.A. 7) 84 F. 111, 28 C.C.A. 130; ... Mound Valley Brick Co. v. Mound Valley Gas Co. (C.C.A. 8) 205 ... F. 147, 123 C.C.A. 478 ... [2] Section 4 'distinctly excludes from ... this permission all cars ... ...
-
Denver Live Stock Commission Co. v. Lee
...Highway Trailer Co. v. City of Des Moines (C. C. A.) 298 F. 71; United States v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. (C. C. A.) 270 F. 1; Mason v. United States (C. C. A.) 219 F. 547; Union Pacific v. Laughlin (C. C. A.) 245 F. 544; Seep v. Ferris-Haggarty Copper Mining Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 201 F. 893; Hum......