British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co.

139 U.S. 222, 11 S. Ct. 523, 35 L. Ed. 147, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2376
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 16, 1891
Docket169
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 139 U.S. 222 (British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining 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 Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222, 11 S. Ct. 523, 35 L. Ed. 147, 1891 U.S. LEXIS 2376 (1891).

Opinion

139 U.S. 222 (1891)

BRITISH QUEEN MINING COMPANY
v.
BAKER SILVER MINING COMPANY.

No. 169.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued March 13, 1891.
Decided March 16, 1891.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

Mr. James B. Reilly for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A.H. Wintersteen and Mr. Wayne McVeagh filed a brief for defendant in error. Mr. E.T. Wells, Mr. R.T. McNeal and Mr. John G. Taylor also filed a brief for same.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER 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

Related

Larsen v. Martin
143 P.2d 239 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1943)
Nevins v. United States
95 F.2d 553 (Seventh Circuit, 1938)
United States v. Shingle
91 F.2d 85 (Ninth Circuit, 1937)
McCaughn v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co.
297 U.S. 606 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Fred W. Mears Heel Co. v. Walley
71 F.2d 876 (First Circuit, 1934)
Merriam v. Huselton
45 F.2d 983 (Eighth Circuit, 1930)
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
30 F.2d 655 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
Lahman v. Burnes Nat. Bank
20 F.2d 897 (Eighth Circuit, 1927)
Thompson-Starrett Co. v. La Belle Iron Works
17 F.2d 536 (Second Circuit, 1927)
Java Cocoanut Oil Co. v. Pajaro Valley Nat. Bank
300 F. 305 (Ninth Circuit, 1924)
Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
299 F. 478 (Fifth Circuit, 1924)
Hartford Fire Ins. v. War Eagle Coal Co.
295 F. 663 (Fourth Circuit, 1924)
T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates
283 F. 364 (Seventh Circuit, 1922)
Schoenwald v. Bishop
244 F. 715 (Ninth Circuit, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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