Ham v. Edgell

106 F. 820, 45 C.C.A. 661, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3627
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 26, 1901·No. No. 1,013·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Some questions are presented as to the sufficiency and regularity of the writ of error in this case, and as to the sufficiency of the bond given, but it is not necessary to pass upon them, because we are constrained to hold as heretofore in Branch v. Manufacturing Co., 4 C. C. A. 54, 53 Fed. 849.

There is in the record no verdict of a jury. It is manifest that the case was tried without a jury. There is nothing in the record from which it affirmatively appears, or can reasonably be assumed, [822] that the parties or their attorneys of record filed with the clerk a stipulation in writing waiving a jury. Rev. tít. § 049. It is well settled that in actions at law in the circuit courts of the United States, when a trial is had without a jury, if a written stipulation waiving a jury is not in some way affirmatively shown in the record, none of the questions decided at the trial can be re-examined on writ of error. Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 5 Sup. Ct. 296, 28 L. Ed. 835; County of Madison v. Warren, 106 U. S. 622, 2 Sup. Ct. 86, 27 L. Ed. 311; Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, 16 L. Ed. 96, and other cases cited in Bond v. Dustin. For the foregoing reasons, and without passing on any of the questions presented by the assignments of error, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Ham v. Edgell, 106 F. 820, 45 C.C.A. 661, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3627 (5th Cir. 1901).

106 F. 820 (Ham v. Edgell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Erkel v. United States
169 F. 623 (Ninth Circuit, 1909)