Roach v. Minshall

Sixth Circuit

Roach v. Minshall

85 F.2d 614, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

DocketNo. 6746

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 F.2d 614 (Roach v. Minshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roach v. Minshall, 85 F.2d 614, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198 (6th Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court upon a consideration of this case that a jury was waived and' the cause tried to the court, that there was only a general finding and judgment in favor of appellees, that there was no request for any special findings of fact, and of course no exception for a failure to find specific facts, that there was no proposition of law presented to the court by motion for judgment with request for a ruling thereon, and that there is therefore no reviewable question presented in the record [see Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 356, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed. 624; Lewellyn, Collector, v. Electric Reduction Co., 275 U.S. 243, 248, 48 S.Ct. 63, 72 L.Ed. 262; Law v. United States, 266 U.S. 494, 45 S.Ct. 175, 69 L.Ed. 401; Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Pearson, 37 F.(2d) 896 (C.C.A. 6); Fordson Coal Co. v. Wilson, 39 F.(2d) 55 (C.C.A. 6); May v. Marbury, 39 F.(2d) 438 (C.C.A. 6); Wynne v. Fries, 50 F.(2d) 761 (C.C.A. 6); Brown v. Harvey Coal Corp., 61 F.(2d) 624 (C.C.A. 6) ; Rose v. United States, 69 F.(2d) 966 (C.C.A. 6); Humphreys v. Third National Bank, 75 F. 852, 855 (C.C.A. 6)],

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court upon a consideration of this case that a jury was waived and' the cause tried to the court, that there was only a general finding and judgment in favor of appellees, that there was no request for any special findings of fact, and of course no exception for a failure to find specific facts, that there was no proposition of law presented to the court by motion for judgment with request for a ruling thereon, and that there is therefore no reviewable question presented in the record [see Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 356, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed. 624; Lewellyn, Collector, v. Electric Reduction Co., 275 U.S. 243, 248, 48 S.Ct. 63, 72 L.Ed. 262; Law v. United States, 266 U.S. 494, 45 S.Ct. 175, 69 L.Ed. 401; Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Pearson, 37 F.(2d) 896 (C.C.A. 6); Fordson Coal Co. v. Wilson, 39 F.(2d) 55 (C.C.A. 6); May v. Marbury, 39 F.(2d) 438 (C.C.A. 6); Wynne v. Fries, 50 F.(2d) 761 (C.C.A. 6); Brown v. Harvey Coal Corp., 61 F.(2d) 624 (C.C.A. 6) ; Rose v. United States, 69 F.(2d) 966 (C.C.A. 6); Humphreys v. Third National Bank, 75 F. 852, 855 (C.C.A. 6)],

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F.2d 614, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roach-v-minshall-ca6-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack