Roach v. Minshall
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.