McClay v. Fleming
| Decision Date | 28 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 5630. |
| Citation | 271 F. 472 |
| Parties | McCLAY v. FLEMING. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John A Blevins, of St. Louis, Mo. (A. M. Keene, of Ft. Scott, Kan on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
David N. Taylor, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and LEWIS, District Judge.
This was an action at law, commenced by Fleming against McClay to recover the value of a stock of general merchandise delivered to McClay in pursuance of a contract that in consideration for said merchandise McClay would deliver to Fleming 49 shares of the capital stock of the Delphi Oil & Gas Company Fleming claiming that he was entitled to rescind the contract for the nondelivery of the stock as agreed. A jury was duly waived, and the case tried to the court, which, after a consideration of the evidence, rendered judgment against McClay in the sum of $2,500. Counsel for Fleming has filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error for noncompliance with the rules of this court in regard to the assignments of error. The grounds of the motion are well taken. Rules 11 and 24 of this court (188 F. ix, xvi, 109 C.C.A. ix, xvi). The assignments of error present nothing for review.
There is, however, a more serious difficulty with the record because it goes to our jurisdiction to consider the case at all. There was no request by the defendant, before the court below rendered its judgment, to find the facts in his favor or to declare the law in his favor, and of course no ruling by the court. If counsel would only consult the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, where the proper procedure to be taken in a trial to the court, where a jury is waived, in order to review alleged errors, is stated, this court would be saved much trouble and annoyance, and counsel could have their cases reviewed; but as long as they insist on ignoring the statutes and decisions there can be but one result. This court has at every term of court practically spoken upon the subject. In Mason v. U.S., 219 F. 547, 135 C.C.A. 315, the cases both in the Supreme Court and this court are cited. At the present term in U.S. v. A., T. & S.F. Ry., 270 F. 1, decided January 12, 1921, the whole matter is discussed and decided in line with our previous decisions.
We think that, instead of dismissing the writ of error, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
...Seep v. Ferris-Haggarty Copper Min. Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 201 F. 893; Humphreys v. Third Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 75 F. 852; McClay v. Fleming (C. C. A.) 271 F. 472; Stoffregen v. Moore (C. C. A.) 271 F. 680; Gartner v. Hays (C. C. A.) 272 F. 896; Pennok Oil Co. v. Roxana Pet. Co. (C. C. A.) 28......
-
Pennok Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Co. of Oklahoma
... ... Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, 196 F. 200, 116 ... C.C.A. 32; Tiernan et al. v. Chicago Life Ins. Co., ... 214 F. 238, 131 C.C.A. 284; McClay v. Fleming ... (C.C.A.) 271 F. 472; Stanley v. Supervisors of ... Albany, 121 U.S. 535, 7 Sup.Ct. 1234, 30 L.Ed. 1000 ... In view ... ...
-
Denver Live Stock Commission Co. v. Lee
...Seep v. Ferris-Haggarty Copper Mining Co. et al. (C. C. A.) 201 F. 893; Humphreys v. Third Nat. Bank (C. C. A.) 75 F. 852; McClay v. Fleming (C. C. A.) 271 F. 472; Stoffregen v. Moore (C. C. A.) 271 F. 680; Gartner v. Hays (C. C. A.) 272 F. 896; Pennok Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Co. (C. C.......
-
Pauchet v. Bujac
... ... 315; Haynes Automobile Co. v. Kansas ... Casualty & Surety Co., 261 F. 347; United States v ... Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 270 F. 1; McClay v ... Fleming, 271 F. 472; Northrup Nat. Bank v. Title ... Guaranty & Surety Co., 271 F. 952; Gartner v ... Hays, 272 F. 896 ... ...