Skinner v. Franklin County

• Citation: 56 F. 783
• Decision Date: 17 May 1893
• Docket Number: 93.
• Parties: SKINNER v. FRANKLIN COUNTY.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

56 F. 783

SKINNER v. FRANKLIN COUNTY.

No. 93.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 17, 1893

G. A Sanders, for appellant.

D. M Browning, for appellee.

Before WOODS and JENKINS, Circuit Judges, and BAKER, District Judge.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

The parties having waived a jury, the court below made a general finding for the defendant, and gave judgment accordingly. After stating the evidence adduced, the bill of exceptions says: 'Plaintiff excepted then and there to the conclusions of law announced by the court, and prayed an appeal. Judgment rendered September 30, 1892, to which action of the court plaintiff then and there excepted.' No proposition of law was submitted to the court, no special finding upon any question of law or fact was made or asked and no exception taken to any ruling or action of the court during the trial. Save the general finding and judgment, there is nothing to show that the court considered or what views it held upon the various propositions embraced in the assignment of errors, and the assignment can be regarded as meaning no more than that the court erred in its finding and in giving judgment for the defendant. But that action of the court cannot be reviewed here. It is the settled law of this court, as well as of the supreme court of the United States, that it has no power to review the finding of a trial court upon questions of fact in a case at law. Such finding has the same effect as the verdict of a jury, and is not reviewable upon writ of error or appeal. Rev. St. §§ 649, 700; Copelin v. Insurance Co., 9 Wall. 461, 467; The Abbotsford, 98 U.S. 440, 443; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U.S. 617, 8 S.Ct. 261; Roberts v. Benjamin, 124 U.S. 71, 8 S.Ct. 393; Hathaway v. Bank, 134 U.S. 498, 10 S.Ct. 608. By this court: Reed v. Stapp, 9 U.S. App. 34, 3 C. C. A. 244, 52 F. 641; Farwell v. Sturges, 56 F. 782; Press v. Davis, 54 F. 267. If a case be submitted to the court for decision upon an agreed statement of facts, that statement, it has been held, may be 'considered to be equivalent to a special verdict, and to present questions of law alone for the consideration of the court;' and, that being so, the decision may, of course, be reviewed by an appellate court. Supervisors v. Kennicott, 103 U.S. 554, and cases cited. In the case of Paper Bag Co. v. Van Nortwick, 9 U.S. App. 25, 3 C. C. A. 274, 52 F. 752, the circuit court had struck out and excluded the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and, an exception having been duly saved and error assigned upon the ruling, this court reviewed the evidence so far as necessary to determine whether or not it showed a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, and, finding that it did, reversed the judgment, and ordered a new trial. But if, instead of rejecting, the circuit court had considered that evidence, and had entered a general finding and judgment for the defendant, this court could not have inquired whether or not the finding was justified by the evidence.

But while no question has been preserved in a way to require consideration, we find upon examination of the record that the judgment is free from error. For a detailed statement of the facts, we refer to the opinion of the supreme court in German Sav. Bank v. Franklin Co., 128 U.S. 526, 9 S.Ct. 159. A brief statement is enough here. On the 13th of November, 1877, Franklin county issued to the Belleville & Eldorado Railroad Company bonds for $1,000 each to the amount of $149,000, of which one hundred purported to have been issued under the charter of the company, an act approved February 22, 1861, and the remainder under an act of the legislature passed in 1849. The county brought in the court below a bill to enjoin state and county officers against levying and collecting taxes for the payment of the bonds or the interest thereon, and obtained a temporary order. The holders of the bonds were described as unknown, and notice was given them by publication. Afterwards the German Savings Bank, owning bonds of both descriptions, and others, who need not be named hers, were permitted to become parties, and upon issues joined the case was submitted 'on the bill, answers,...