Bouldin v. Alto Mines Co.

Ninth Circuit

Bouldin v. Alto Mines Co.

299 F. 301, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2576

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 1924

DocketNo. 4209

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 299 F. 301 (Bouldin v. Alto Mines Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bouldin v. Alto Mines Co., 299 F. 301, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2576 (9th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

[302]*302RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action at law tried by the court without a jury. In such cases the rule is firmly established that the jurisdiction of this court to review the rulings of the court below, with minor exceptions not material here, is dependent upon a compliance with the requirements of section 649 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1587), namely, the filing with the clerk of a stipulation in writing waiving a jury. No other waiver will suffice, and in the absence of such a stipulation we can only look to the process, pleadings, and judgment. Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 5 Sup. Ct. 296, 28 L. Ed. 835; Road Imp. District v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 257 U. S. 547, 562, 42 Sup. Ct. 250, 66 L. Ed. 364; Columbus Compress Co. v. United States F. & G. Co., 186 Fed. 487, 108 C. C. A. 465; Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 218 Fed. 310, 134 C. C. A. 106; Ford v. United States, 260 Fed. 657, 171 C. C. A. 421.

There is no error apparent upon the face of the record, and the judgment of the court below must therefore he affirmed.

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

[302]*302RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action at law tried by the court without a jury. In such cases the rule is firmly established that the jurisdiction of this court to review the rulings of the court below, with minor exceptions not material here, is dependent upon a compliance with the requirements of section 649 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 1587), namely, the filing with the clerk of a stipulation in writing waiving a jury. No other waiver will suffice, and in the absence of such a stipulation we can only look to the process, pleadings, and judgment. Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 5 Sup. Ct. 296, 28 L. Ed. 835; Road Imp. District v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co., 257 U. S. 547, 562, 42 Sup. Ct. 250, 66 L. Ed. 364; Columbus Compress Co. v. United States F. & G. Co., 186 Fed. 487, 108 C. C. A. 465; Ladd & Tilton Bank v. Lewis A. Hicks Co., 218 Fed. 310, 134 C. C. A. 106; Ford v. United States, 260 Fed. 657, 171 C. C. A. 421.

There is no error apparent upon the face of the record, and the judgment of the court below must therefore he affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F. 301, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bouldin-v-alto-mines-co-ca9-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack