TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Northrup Nat. Bank v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.

Northrup Nat. Bank v. Title Guar. & Sur. Co., 271 F. 952 (8th Cir. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 12, 1921
Docket
No. 5341
Judges
Hook
Citations
271 F. 9521921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1902
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Appeal and error 850 (4)—In case tried by court, where there were no requests, and sufficiency of proof was not attacked, there is nothing for review. In an action tried by the court on waiver of a jury, on an agreed statement of facts, supplemented by evidence, where no special findings were made, and plaintiff requested no finding in its favor, and no declarations of law responsive to the agreed statement and the evidence, and the sufficiency of the proofs was .not challenged in any way, thex*e is nothing for review in the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge. Action by the Northrup National Bank against Title Guaranty & Surety Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hook

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This was an action at law tried by the court below upon waiver of a jury. There was an agreed statement of facts, which did not, however, cover all-of the essential issues in the case, and it was therefore supplemented by oral testimony and other evidence. At the conclusion of the trial the court xnade a general finding for defendant and rendered judgment in its favor. No special findings of fact were made. The plaintiff made no request for a finding in its favor, nor for declarations of law responsive to the agreed statement and the evidence. The sufficiency of the proofs before the court to sustain the general finding and judgment was not challenged in any way. The sole complaint now made is that the court below erred in its finding and judgment.

It has long been established by the Supreme Court and by this and other Circuit Courts of Appeals that in the above circumstances the statute leaves no question open for review. There are so many decisions to this effect in this court, some of them quite recent, that it is needless to cite them.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 11922: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Pauchet v. Bujac281 F. 962 (8th Cir. 1922)
  2. Granite Falls Bank v. Keyes277 F. 796 (8th Cir. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Pauchet v. Bujac281 F. 962 (8th Cir. 1922)
  2. Granite Falls Bank v. Keyes277 F. 796 (8th Cir. 1921)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list