Home/Supreme Court/Boardman v. Toffey

Boardman v. Toffey

117 U.S. 271, 6 S. Ct. 734, 29 L. Ed. 898, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1835
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 15, 1886
Docket158
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 117 U.S. 271 (Boardman v. Toffey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U.S. 271, 6 S. Ct. 734, 29 L. Ed. 898, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1835 (1886).

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This judgment is affirmed. The trial was by the court without a jury and there is no special finding of facts. The only questions presented by the bill of exceptions which we can consider are those which relate to the refusal of the court to allow certain interrogatories to be put to witnesses on the stand, and in these we find no error. The general finding prevents all inquiry by us into the special facts and conclusions of law on which that finding rests. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 673.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Bridget M. Denny-Shaffer
2 F.3d 999 (Tenth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Shingle
91 F.2d 85 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
City of Woodward v. Caldwell
86 F.2d 567 (Tenth Circuit, 1936)
Lyle v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
72 F.2d 347 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corp. of New York
51 F.2d 218 (Ninth Circuit, 1931)
White v. United States
48 F.2d 178 (Tenth Circuit, 1931)
Merriam v. Huselton
45 F.2d 983 (Eighth Circuit, 1930)
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
30 F.2d 655 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Forsberg
270 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1926)
United States v. Gordin
9 F.2d 394 (Sixth Circuit, 1925)
Law v. United States
266 U.S. 494 (Supreme Court, 1925)
T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates
283 F. 364 (Seventh Circuit, 1922)
Phœnix Securities Co. v. Dittmar
224 F. 892 (Ninth Circuit, 1915)
Porter v. F. M. Davies & Co.
223 F. 465 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Mason v. United States
219 F. 547 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Kingan & Co. v. Beall
42 App. D.C. 487 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1914)
Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. Whiteway
210 F. 782 (Ninth Circuit, 1914)
National Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Supply Co.
200 F. 142 (Eighth Circuit, 1912)
Paul v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
130 F. 951 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York, 1904)
McCrea v. Parsons
112 F. 917 (Seventh Circuit, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 U.S. 271, 6 S. Ct. 734, 29 L. Ed. 898, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boardman-v-toffey-scotus-1886.