Glenn v. Fant

Supreme Court

Glenn v. Fant

134 U.S. 398, 10 S. Ct. 583, 33 L. Ed. 969, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1981

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 24, 1890

Docket357

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 134 U.S. 398 (Glenn v. Fant) 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

Glenn v. Fant, 134 U.S. 398, 10 S. Ct. 583, 33 L. Ed. 969, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1981 (1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

No ■ bill of exceptions was taken in this case, nor was there any finding of facts by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, nor any case' stated by the parties analogous to á special vérdict and stating the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only. What is styled here an “ agreed. statement, of facts” is an agreement as to certain matters, and that the .parties might refer to and rely upon any and all grounds of action or defence to be found in two voluminous exhibits, marked X and Y, being the records of two equity causes in other -courts, including all the pleadings and evidence, as well as the orders and decrees therein. The effect of .some of that evidence and of the conclusions of fact to be drawn from' it is controverted. It is impossible for us to regard this' stipulation as taking the place of a special verdict of a jury, or a special finding of facts by the court, upon which our jurisdiction could properly be invoked to determine the questions of . law thereon arising. And while the case is governed by the rule laid down in Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, yet, even if the statutory provisions in relation to the trial of causes without the intervention of a jury by the Circuit Courts of the United States were-applicable, the result upon this record would be the same. Raimond v. Terrebonne Par *401 ish, 132 U. S. 192; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604; Lyons v. Lyons Bank, 19 Blatchford, 279.

The judgment must be

Ajfu'med.

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

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

No ■ bill of exceptions was taken in this case, nor was there any finding of facts by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, nor any case' stated by the parties analogous to á special vérdict and stating the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only. What is styled here an “ agreed. statement, of facts” is an agreement as to certain matters, and that the .parties might refer to and rely upon any and all grounds of action or defence to be found in two voluminous exhibits, marked X and Y, being the records of two equity causes in other -courts, including all the pleadings and evidence, as well as the orders and decrees therein. The effect of .some of that evidence and of the conclusions of fact to be drawn from' it is controverted. It is impossible for us to regard this' stipulation as taking the place of a special verdict of a jury, or a special finding of facts by the court, upon which our jurisdiction could properly be invoked to determine the questions of . law thereon arising. And while the case is governed by the rule laid down in Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, yet, even if the statutory provisions in relation to the trial of causes without the intervention of a jury by the Circuit Courts of the United States were-applicable, the result upon this record would be the same. Raimond v. Terrebonne Par *401 ish, 132 U. S. 192; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604; Lyons v. Lyons Bank, 19 Blatchford, 279.

The judgment must be

Ajfu'med.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 U.S. 398, 10 S. Ct. 583, 33 L. Ed. 969, 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-v-fant-scotus-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack