Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. City of Belleville

Seventh Circuit

Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. City of Belleville

83 F. 675, 27 C.C.A. 674, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2121

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 1897

DocketNo. 413

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 83 F. 675 (Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. City of Belleville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. City of Belleville, 83 F. 675, 27 C.C.A. 674, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2121 (7th Cir. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURTAM.

This was a suit at law, which, upon written stipulation of the parties, was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The court found generally in favor of the defendant, the city of Belleville, and judgment was thereupon rendered in its favor. There was no special finding of facts and no statement of conclusions of law. Error is assigned only upon the general finding of the court. There is, therefore, nothing for this court to review. Martinton v Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 5 Sup. Ct. 321; Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 271, 6 Sup. Ct. 734; Jenks’ Adm’r v. Stapp, 9 U. S. App. 34, 3 C. C. A. 244, and 52 Fed. 641; Skinner v. Franklin Co., 9 U. S. App. 676, 6 C. C. A. 118, and 56 Fed. 783; Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. Gottschalk Co., 21 U. S. App. 638, 13 C. C. A. 618, and 66 Fed. 609; Phipps v. Harding, 34 U. S. App. 148, 17 C. C. A. 203, and 70 Fed. 468; Woodbury v. City of Shawneetown. 31 U. S. App. 655, 20 C. C. A. 400, and 71 Fed. 205; Seymour v. White Co., 31 U. S. App. 658, 20 C. C. A. 102, and 71 Fed. 207. The writ of error is dismissed.

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

PER CURTAM.

This was a suit at law, which, upon written stipulation of the parties, was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury. The court found generally in favor of the defendant, the city of Belleville, and judgment was thereupon rendered in its favor. There was no special finding of facts and no statement of conclusions of law. Error is assigned only upon the general finding of the court. There is, therefore, nothing for this court to review. Martinton v Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 5 Sup. Ct. 321; Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 271, 6 Sup. Ct. 734; Jenks’ Adm’r v. Stapp, 9 U. S. App. 34, 3 C. C. A. 244, and 52 Fed. 641; Skinner v. Franklin Co., 9 U. S. App. 676, 6 C. C. A. 118, and 56 Fed. 783; Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. Gottschalk Co., 21 U. S. App. 638, 13 C. C. A. 618, and 66 Fed. 609; Phipps v. Harding, 34 U. S. App. 148, 17 C. C. A. 203, and 70 Fed. 468; Woodbury v. City of Shawneetown. 31 U. S. App. 655, 20 C. C. A. 400, and 71 Fed. 205; Seymour v. White Co., 31 U. S. App. 658, 20 C. C. A. 102, and 71 Fed. 207. The writ of error is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F. 675, 27 C.C.A. 674, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fourth-nat-bank-of-st-louis-v-city-of-belleville-ca7-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack