10 S.Ct. 583

134 U.S. 398

33 L.Ed. 969


March 24, 1890.

[Statement of Case from pages 398-400 intentionally omitted]

Charles Marshall, John Howard, H. W. Garnett, and Conway Robinson, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

M. F. Morris, W. D. Davidge, and Reginald Fendall, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.


No bill of exceptions was taken in this case, nor was there any finding of facts by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, nor any case stated by the parties analogous to a special verdict, and stating the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only. What is styled here an 'agreed statement of facts' is an agreement as to certain matters, and that the parties might refer to and rely upon any and all grounds of action or defense to be found in two voluminous exhibits, marked 'X' and 'Y,' being the records of two equity causes in other courts, including all the pleadings and evidence, as well as the orders and decrees therein. The effect of some of that evidence, and of the conclusions of fact to be drawn from it, is controverted. It is impossible for us to regard this stipulation as taking the place of a special verdict of a jury, or a special finding of facts by the court, upon which our jurisdiction could properly be invoked to determine the questions of law thereon arising. And while the case is governed by the rule laid down in Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, yet, even if the statutory provisions in relation to the trial of causes without the intervention of a jury by the circuit courts of the United States were applicable, the result upon this record would be the same. Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192, ante, 57; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; Lyons v. Bank, 19 Blatchf. 279, 8 Fed. Rep. 369. The judgment must be affirmed.

The following state regulations pages link to this page.