United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | 2,935. |
| Citation | 167 F. 126 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SIOUX CITY STOCK YARDS CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Syllabus by the Court
The special finding contemplated by Rev. St. Secs. 649, 700 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, pp. 525, 570), is a specific statement of those ultimate facts upon which the law must determine the rights of the parties. It corresponds to the special verdict of a jury, is equally specific and responsive to the issues and is spread at large upon the record, as part thereof, in like manner as is such a verdict.
Frederick F. Faville, U.S. Atty., and James A. Rogers, Asst. U.S. atty.
William Milchrist and George C. Scott, for defendant in error.
Before VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge, and RINER and AMIDON, District judges.
This was a civil action to recover a penalty alleged to have been incurred under section 3 of the act of June 29, 1906, c 3594, 34 Stat. 608 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 919), known as the '28-Hour Law.' The answer was practically a general denial, and the issues of fact were determined by the Circuit Court without the intervention of a jury, pursuant to a written stipulation of the parties. The trial resulted in a judgment for the defendant, which necessarily imported although it did not expressly contain, a finding in the defendant's favor. Error was originally assigned upon several rulings of the trial court, but counsel for the government concede, in their reply brief, that they must rely upon the single contention that what they assume was a special finding is not sufficient to support the judgment. Unfortunately for this contention, however, there was no special finding. That which counsel assume was such is not so designated in the record, was not so intended by the trial court, and cannot be so regarded by this court. It is an extended opinion (reported 162 F. 556) in which the trial judge refers to the issues formed by the pleadings, portions of the evidence, the statute, and the contentions advanced by counsel, and then discursively disposes of those contentions, and concludes that the penalty sought to be recovered had not been incurred by the defendant. Repeated decisions of the Supreme Court, as also of this court, make it altogether plain that such an opinion is not a special finding within the meaning of the statute (Rev. St. Secs. 649, 700 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 525, 570)), and cannot be resorted to for the purpose of controlling, modifying, or supplementing the finding otherwise disclosed or imported by the record. British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222, 11 Sup.Ct. 523, 35 L.Ed. 147; Saltonstall v. Birtwell, 150 U.S. 417, 14 Sup.Ct. 169, 37 L.Ed. 1128; Stone v. United States, 164 U.S. 380, 17 Sup.Ct. 71, 41 L.Ed. 477; York v. Washburn, 64 C.C.A. 132, 129 F. 564; Hayden v. Ogden Savings Bank, 85 C.C.A. 558, 158 F. 90. The special finding contemplated by the statute is a specific statement of those ultimate facts upon which the law must determine the rights of the parties. It corresponds to the special verdict of a jury, is equally specific and responsive to the issues, and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleischmann Const Co v. United States Forsberg, 50
...Mining Co., 11 S. Ct. 523, 139 U. S. 222, 35 L. Ed. 147; York v. Washburn, 129 F. 564, 566, 64 C. C. A. 132; United States v. Stockyards Co., 167 F. 126, 127, 92 C. C. A. 578. And it is settled by repeated decisions, that in the absence of special findings, the general finding of the court ......
-
Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
...States, 250 U.S. 88, 39 S. Ct. 426, 63 L.Ed. 859; Reibel v. Mueller, 177 Minn. 602, 225 N.W. 924, 66 A.L.R. 1; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co., 8 Cir., 167 F. 126; Fleischmann C. Company v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed. 624; Miller v. Marks, 46 Utah 257, 14......
-
Blumenthal v. United States
...v. Kuykendall, 275 U.S. 207, 48 S.Ct. 41, 72 L.Ed. 241; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (C. C.) 162 F. 556, affirmed (C.C.A.) 167 F. 126; Bay v. Merrill & Ring Lumber Co. (D.C.) 211 F. 717, affirmed (C.C.A.) 220 F. 295; Louis McCusker v. Curtiss Wright Flying Service, Inc., 269 ......
-
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...v. Baker Mining Co., 139 U. S. 222 11 S. Ct. 523, 35 S. Ct. 147; York v. Washburn (C. C. A.) 129 F. 564, 566; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (C. C. A.) 167 F. 126, 127. And it is settled by repeated decisions that, in the absence of special findings, the general finding of the ......