British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co

Supreme Court

British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co

139 U.S. 222, 35 L. Ed. 147, 11 S. Ct. 523, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2376

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 16, 1891

Docket169

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 139 U.S. 222 (British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co) 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

British Queen Min. Co. Of Colorado v. Baker Silver Min. Co, 139 U.S. 222, 35 L. Ed. 147, 11 S. Ct. 523, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2376 (1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Puller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was tried by the Circuit Court, without a jury, and under §§ 649 and 700, Rev. Stat., the finding must be “ either general or special.” It cannot be both. Here there was a general finding.

The record contains a bill of exceptions, but no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial of the cause were thereby duly presented, and although after reciting the evidence it is therein stated that “ the court thereafter and during the said term made the following findings of fact and judgment thereon,” which is followed by an opinion of the court assigning reasons for its conclusions, this cannot be treated as a special finding enabling us to determine whether the facts found support the judgment, nor can the general finding be disregarded. Dickinson v. Planters’ Bank, 16 Wall. 250; Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Norris v. Jackson, 9 *223 Wall. 125; Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285; Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576.

The record raises no questions open to revision by us and the judgment is Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Puller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was tried by the Circuit Court, without a jury, and under §§ 649 and 700, Rev. Stat., the finding must be “ either general or special.” It cannot be both. Here there was a general finding.

The record contains a bill of exceptions, but no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial of the cause were thereby duly presented, and although after reciting the evidence it is therein stated that “ the court thereafter and during the said term made the following findings of fact and judgment thereon,” which is followed by an opinion of the court assigning reasons for its conclusions, this cannot be treated as a special finding enabling us to determine whether the facts found support the judgment, nor can the general finding be disregarded. Dickinson v. Planters’ Bank, 16 Wall. 250; Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Norris v. Jackson, 9 *223 Wall. 125; Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285; Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576.

The record raises no questions open to revision by us and the judgment is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 U.S. 222, 35 L. Ed. 147, 11 S. Ct. 523, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/british-queen-min-co-of-colorado-v-baker-silver-min-co-scotus-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack