Becher v. Sidner

Eighth Circuit

Becher v. Sidner

87 F.2d 899, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1937

DocketNo. 10658

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 F.2d 899 (Becher v. Sidner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Becher v. Sidner, 87 F.2d 899, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614 (8th Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Circuit Judge.

Sidner brought an action against the receiver of the Union National Bank of Fremont to recover dividends unpaid to him upon a deposit which he had in the bank at the time it was taken over by the comptroller. Besides admitting the deposit, the allowance thereof as a claim, the declaration of dividends, and their nonpayment on this deposit, the receiver pleaded a counterclaim which was that Sidner was the owner of 8% shares of the bank stock and that he had never responded to the double liability which had been ordered by the comptroller. Thus the counterclaim presented the sole controverted issue. Jury was waived and the court found for plaintiff upon his claim and upon defendants’ counterclaim. From a judgment entered thereon, the receiver appeals.

The only questions below or here are whether Sidner was an actual stockholder or is estopped to deny his liability as such. There was no stipulation of facts covering these issues. Evidence was introduced upon them. There is no question as to the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the judgment. Whether the trial court committed error depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to actual ownership and as to estoppel. The entire issue here is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings.

There was a written waiver of jury. There was no request for findings nor any motion for judgment on the ground that the evidence compelled findings or judgment for appellants. In such state of the record, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not open to review in this court. 28 U.S.C. A. § 875; Fierce v. Wyatt (C.C.A.) 83 F.(2d) 892, 893, with numerous citations from the Supreme Court and this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STONE, Circuit Judge.

Sidner brought an action against the receiver of the Union National Bank of Fremont to recover dividends unpaid to him upon a deposit which he had in the bank at the time it was taken over by the comptroller. Besides admitting the deposit, the allowance thereof as a claim, the declaration of dividends, and their nonpayment on this deposit, the receiver pleaded a counterclaim which was that Sidner was the owner of 8% shares of the bank stock and that he had never responded to the double liability which had been ordered by the comptroller. Thus the counterclaim presented the sole controverted issue. Jury was waived and the court found for plaintiff upon his claim and upon defendants’ counterclaim. From a judgment entered thereon, the receiver appeals.

The only questions below or here are whether Sidner was an actual stockholder or is estopped to deny his liability as such. There was no stipulation of facts covering these issues. Evidence was introduced upon them. There is no question as to the sufficiency of the findings to sustain the judgment. Whether the trial court committed error depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to actual ownership and as to estoppel. The entire issue here is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings.

There was a written waiver of jury. There was no request for findings nor any motion for judgment on the ground that the evidence compelled findings or judgment for appellants. In such state of the record, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings is not open to review in this court. 28 U.S.C. A. § 875; Fierce v. Wyatt (C.C.A.) 83 F.(2d) 892, 893, with numerous citations from the Supreme Court and this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F.2d 899, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 2614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becher-v-sidner-ca8-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack