Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co.

Eighth Circuit

Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co.

282 F. 233, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2619

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1922

DocketNo. 6011

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 282 F. 233 (Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co.) 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

Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 282 F. 233, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2619 (8th Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

TRIEBER, District Judge.

This cause was tried to the court, a jury having been waived by stipulation in writing. The trial judge made a general finding in favor of defendants, neither party having requested any special findings, and entered judgment accordingly.

The learned trial judge filed a memorandum opinion, but this cannot take the place of special findings. National Bank of Commerce v. First National Bank, 61 Fed. 809, 10 C. C. A. 87; Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Association, 138 Fed. 381, 70 C. C. A. 521; City of Goldfield v. Roger, 249 Fed. 39, 161 C. C. A. 99.

The only questions -before us on this record are the exceptions taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence of defendants in error. In the assignment of errors plaintiff in error sets out four alleged errors in the admission of testimony, but the record shows that the only exception taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence offered by defendants in error is that set out in the first subdivision of the first assignment of error. We are therefore confined to the consideration of that assignment only.

The testimony excepted to and properly before us, is that the witness, when asked, “In a general way what was that transaction?” answered, “I loaned him $5,500 on the strength of these Sheehey papers as collateral” (the notes in controversy). Mr. Piatt: “I object to the statement: ‘On the strength of it as collateral/” The witness thereupon testified that he conducted the negotiations on behalf of the banks (the defendants). Thereupon the court overruled the objection. We fail to find any error in this ruling.

Nothing else being properly before the court, the judgment is affirmed.

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

TRIEBER, District Judge.

This cause was tried to the court, a jury having been waived by stipulation in writing. The trial judge made a general finding in favor of defendants, neither party having requested any special findings, and entered judgment accordingly.

The learned trial judge filed a memorandum opinion, but this cannot take the place of special findings. National Bank of Commerce v. First National Bank, 61 Fed. 809, 10 C. C. A. 87; Townsend v. Beatrice Cemetery Association, 138 Fed. 381, 70 C. C. A. 521; City of Goldfield v. Roger, 249 Fed. 39, 161 C. C. A. 99.

The only questions -before us on this record are the exceptions taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence of defendants in error. In the assignment of errors plaintiff in error sets out four alleged errors in the admission of testimony, but the record shows that the only exception taken by plaintiff in error to the admission of evidence offered by defendants in error is that set out in the first subdivision of the first assignment of error. We are therefore confined to the consideration of that assignment only.

The testimony excepted to and properly before us, is that the witness, when asked, “In a general way what was that transaction?” answered, “I loaned him $5,500 on the strength of these Sheehey papers as collateral” (the notes in controversy). Mr. Piatt: “I object to the statement: ‘On the strength of it as collateral/” The witness thereupon testified that he conducted the negotiations on behalf of the banks (the defendants). Thereupon the court overruled the objection. We fail to find any error in this ruling.

Nothing else being properly before the court, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F. 233, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-co-v-fidelity-trust-co-ca8-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack