Clark v. Fredericks

Supreme Court

Clark v. Fredericks

105 U.S. 4, 26 L. Ed. 938, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2082

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 16, 1882

Docket178

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 105 U.S. 4 (Clark v. Fredericks) 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

Clark v. Fredericks, 105 U.S. 4, 26 L. Ed. 938, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2082 (1882).

Pincite

Opinion

*5 Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The errors assigned in this case are: —

1. That Mrs. Fredericks, when on the stand as a witness in her own behalf, was not permitted to answer certain questions put to her on cross-examination ;

2. That the court did not separate its findings of fact from its. conclusions of law; and,

- 3. That the court did not find the distinct facts requested- by the plaintiffs in error.

As to the first assignment, it is sufficient to say that no harm could have resulted from the ruling on the cross-examination, as in a subsequent stagé of the case, when the questions were clearly prope'r, the witness testified fully as to all the matters originally inquired about. A judgment will not be reversed because of an error of the court in directing as to the order in which testimony shall be introduced, unless it clearly appears that the complaining party has been injured by what was done'.

The matter referred to in the second assignment does not seem to have been brought to the attention of either of the courts belowj and the objection now made comes too late in this court for the first time. If the defect complained of had been specifically pointed Out to the District Court when the findings were filed, it would no doubt have been corrected. There is nothing in all this very confused record to indicate that the point was ever made until' the brief for the plaintiffs in error was filed here.

. The findings are conclusive as to the facts, and they cover all the issues. Whether the distinct facts set forth in the requests for -findings presented by the plaintiffs in error were proved or not we need not inquire. As the court declined to find them, we must assume they were not established by the evidence.

This record is so confused as to be almost unintelligible. If counsel here had been less careful in the presentation of the questions raised for our re-examination, we should have declined to consider the ease on this -account.

Judgment affirmed.

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

*5 Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

The errors assigned in this case are: —

1. That Mrs. Fredericks, when on the stand as a witness in her own behalf, was not permitted to answer certain questions put to her on cross-examination ;

2. That the court did not separate its findings of fact from its. conclusions of law; and,

- 3. That the court did not find the distinct facts requested- by the plaintiffs in error.

As to the first assignment, it is sufficient to say that no harm could have resulted from the ruling on the cross-examination, as in a subsequent stagé of the case, when the questions were clearly prope'r, the witness testified fully as to all the matters originally inquired about. A judgment will not be reversed because of an error of the court in directing as to the order in which testimony shall be introduced, unless it clearly appears that the complaining party has been injured by what was done'.

The matter referred to in the second assignment does not seem to have been brought to the attention of either of the courts belowj and the objection now made comes too late in this court for the first time. If the defect complained of had been specifically pointed Out to the District Court when the findings were filed, it would no doubt have been corrected. There is nothing in all this very confused record to indicate that the point was ever made until' the brief for the plaintiffs in error was filed here.

. The findings are conclusive as to the facts, and they cover all the issues. Whether the distinct facts set forth in the requests for -findings presented by the plaintiffs in error were proved or not we need not inquire. As the court declined to find them, we must assume they were not established by the evidence.

This record is so confused as to be almost unintelligible. If counsel here had been less careful in the presentation of the questions raised for our re-examination, we should have declined to consider the ease on this -account.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 U.S. 4, 26 L. Ed. 938, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-fredericks-scotus-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack