Farmers' Life Ins. v. Barker

Fifth Circuit

Farmers' Life Ins. v. Barker

2 F.2d 468, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2084

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 20, 1924

DocketNo. 4275

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F.2d 468 (Farmers' Life Ins. v. Barker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farmers' Life Ins. v. Barker, 2 F.2d 468, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2084 (5th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This case was tried before the District Judge, a jury being waived by stipulation in writing.

Two of the assignments of error relate to the admission of testimony during the progress of the trial; but the substance of the evidence admitted is not stated as required by rule 11 of the rules of this court. Besides that, the brief for plaintiff in error does not appear to rely on these assignments, and they were not mentioned in the oral argument. Therefore they will not be considered. Radford Grocery Co. v. Haynie (C. C. A.) 261 F. 349.

The remaining assignments of error complain of findings of fact and of law by the District Judge and of the judgment. The District Judge made no finding either of fact or of law, but at the close of the case merely delivered an oral opinion, stating the reasons which induced him to enter judgment for the defendant in error. The opinion does not take the place of findings of fact or law, and error cannot be assigned on the judgment. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit. Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 478. The result is that the assignments of error which were argued and insisted on present no question for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This case was tried before the District Judge, a jury being waived by stipulation in writing.

Two of the assignments of error relate to the admission of testimony during the progress of the trial; but the substance of the evidence admitted is not stated as required by rule 11 of the rules of this court. Besides that, the brief for plaintiff in error does not appear to rely on these assignments, and they were not mentioned in the oral argument. Therefore they will not be considered. Radford Grocery Co. v. Haynie (C. C. A.) 261 F. 349.

The remaining assignments of error complain of findings of fact and of law by the District Judge and of the judgment. The District Judge made no finding either of fact or of law, but at the close of the case merely delivered an oral opinion, stating the reasons which induced him to enter judgment for the defendant in error. The opinion does not take the place of findings of fact or law, and error cannot be assigned on the judgment. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit. Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 478. The result is that the assignments of error which were argued and insisted on present no question for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F.2d 468, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-life-ins-v-barker-ca5-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack