Smith & Co. v. Kingfalfa Mills

Eighth Circuit

Smith & Co. v. Kingfalfa Mills

237 F. 82, 150 C.C.A. 284, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1940

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 16, 1916

DocketNo. 4108

StatusPublished

This text of 237 F. 82 (Smith & Co. v. Kingfalfa Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith & Co. v. Kingfalfa Mills, 237 F. 82, 150 C.C.A. 284, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1940 (8th Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

[1, 2] This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action at law upon contract. The assignments of error relied on challenge proceedings.at the trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The trial was by the court upon waiver of a jury. The court found generally for the defendant and gave judgment accordingly. It made no special findings of fact. Its memorandum opinion does not fill that office. Tiernan v. Chicago Life Ins. Co., 131 C. C. A. 284, 287, 214 Fed. 238; Keeley v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598. There is no bill of exceptions disclosing the evidence upon which the court acted, or rulings admitting or rejecting evidence, or declarations of law adopted or denied. The judgment rendered was within the issues made by the pleadings.

By the long settled practice of the appellate courts of the United States, frequently announced, there is nothing in the record before us which we can review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

[1, 2] This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action at law upon contract. The assignments of error relied on challenge proceedings.at the trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The trial was by the court upon waiver of a jury. The court found generally for the defendant and gave judgment accordingly. It made no special findings of fact. Its memorandum opinion does not fill that office. Tiernan v. Chicago Life Ins. Co., 131 C. C. A. 284, 287, 214 Fed. 238; Keeley v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598. There is no bill of exceptions disclosing the evidence upon which the court acted, or rulings admitting or rejecting evidence, or declarations of law adopted or denied. The judgment rendered was within the issues made by the pleadings.

By the long settled practice of the appellate courts of the United States, frequently announced, there is nothing in the record before us which we can review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F. 82, 150 C.C.A. 284, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-co-v-kingfalfa-mills-ca8-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack