Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias v. England, 1 126.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1899 |
| Docket Number | 1 126. |
| Citation | 94 F. 369 |
| Parties | SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, v. ENGLAND. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
W. M Hough (W. S. McCain, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
J. M Moore and W. B. Smith, for defendant in error.
Before CALDWELL, SANBORN and THAYER, Circuit Judges.
This action was tried below by the court, a jury having been waived by the parties. There was an agreed statement of facts, and also other evidence. At the close of the evidence the bill of exceptions recites that:
'On this evidence the plaintiff moved for judgment against defendant for the amount of the certificate, $3,000, and interest, which the court gave, over and against the objection of the defendant, to which defendant excepted.'
The court made no special findings of fact. There was no demurrer to the evidence, no exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence, and no declarations of law made by the court and none asked by the defendant.
It is the settled rule of the supreme court of the United States and of this court that, when a case is tried by a federal court without a jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain its general findings of fact cannot be considered by the appellate court. Hoge v. Magnes, 56 U.S.App. 500, 29 C.C.A. 564, and 85 F. 355, and cases there cited; Minchen v. Hart, 36 U.S.App. 534, 18 C.C.A. 570, and 72 F. 294. In Lehnen v. Dickson, 148 U.S. 71, 77, 13 Sup.Ct. 481, the supreme court declare with emphasis that:
The jurisdiction of the court below is questioned because the plaintiff in error, although created by an act of congress has its domicile in the District of Columbia. In Supreme Lodge v. Kalinski, 163 U.S. 289, 16 Sup.Ct. 1047, the supreme court failed to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction; and although it is true, as claimed by counsel, that the question of jurisdiction was not raised, yet the statement of the case shows that it was originally brought in a state court, and removed to the federal court upon the ground that it was a federal corporation. The supreme court does not have to be moved to notice a question of jurisdiction. It is always on the alert for that question, and is quick to dismiss a case of which the lower court had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of Alabama v. Acacia Mut. Life Ass'n
...the defendant. Such question here involved was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, in Supreme Lodge, K. P., v. England, 94 F. 369, 36 C. C. A. 298, where the court "The jurisdiction of the court below is questioned because the plaintiff in error, although created by an ......
-
Rury v. Gandy
...Defendants cite Yeandle v. Penn. Ry., 169 F. 938, 95 C. C. A. 282; Newcomb v. Burbank, 181 F. 334, 104 C. C. A. 164; Sup. Lodge v. England, 94 F. 369, 36 C. C. A. 298; Louisville Ry. v. Mottley, 29 S. Ct. 42, 211 U. S. 149, 53 L. Ed. 126; Shade v. N. P. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 206 F. 353; Brown v. ......
-
Files v. Davis
... ... attachment suit ... 1. Does ... an action on an attachment bond ... 593, 12 Sup.Ct. 905, 36 L.Ed. 829; ... Supreme Lodge K.P. v. England, 36 C.C.A. 298, 94 F ... ...
-
A.L. Wolff & Co. v. Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co.
... ... of the Supreme Court that a corporation cannot be considered ... [133 F. 603] ... Removal Cases, 115 U.S. 1, 5 Sup.Ct. 1113, 29 L.Ed. 319; ... Butler v ... 769, 32 ... C.C.A. 470; Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. England, 94 F ... 369, 36 C.C.A ... ...