Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 U.S. 135

Albert Guild v. Joseph Frontin

Supreme Court of the United States

December Term, 1855

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1855-12

This case was brought up by writ of error from the district court of. the United States for the northern district of California. ' The point of practice involved in it, is stated in the opinion of the court.

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““There is in the record what purports to be a special finding of the facts by the court. But the record does not show that tho parties, or their attorneys of record, filed with the clerk a stipulation in writing waiving a jury, as required by section 649 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The recital in the record that ‘both parties, in open court, having waived a jury, and agreed to trial before the court,’ does nor show a compliance with section 649. The following recitals in the record have been held insufficient for this purpose: “The issue joined hy consent is tried by the court, a jury being waived,’ and ‘the above cause coming on for trial, by agreement of parties, by the court, without the intervention of a jury,’ and ‘the parties having stipulated to submit üie case for trial by the court without the intervention of a jury,’ and ‘said cause being tried by the court without a jury, by agreement of parties,’ and ‘upon the trial of this cause before the Hon. S. H. Treat, sitting as circuit judge, a jury being waived by both parties.’ * * .* The sufficiency of the facts found by the lower court to support the judgment can only be considered by this court when a jury has been waived in writing, as provided in section 619. When a jury has not been thus waived, tho facts found by the lower court cannot be noticed by the appellate court for any purpose, and the case stands as though the judgment of the lower court had been rendered on the general verdict of a jury”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.

“Parties may, by consent, waive the trial of issues of fact by a jury, and submit the trial of both facts and law to the court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Faison v. Nationwide Mortgage Corp.

Relies on George Prentice and George Weissinger Copartners Doing Business Under the Style and Firm of Prentice Weissinger v. Platoff Zane's Administrator

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Opinion by Robert Cooper Grier · Decided 1855-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1988 · most notably Bond v. Dustin (1884), William Campbell and Thirty-Seven Others v. Clement Boyreau (1858)

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

11018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The point of practice involved in it, is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Blair, for the plaintiffs in error, and submitted on a printed brief by Mr. Cutting, for the defendant.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

¶1

The record and proceedings in this case are in conformity with the practice of the state courts of California. It was tried without the intervention of a jury, and the testimony, together with the opinion of the court, filed of record. But there is no special verdict, or agreed statement of facts, on which the judgment was rendered; nor is there any bill of exceptions, sealed by the court, to their decision on any question of law. We are, in fact, called upon to review the case on the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, as if it were a bill in chancery. Our very frequent decisions on this subject seem not to have come to the knowledge of the bar in the court below. Parties may, by consent, waive the trial of issues of fact by a jury, and submit the trial of both facts and law to the court. It will not be a mistrial. But if they wish the judgment of the court to be reviewed on a writ of error, a special verdict or agreed statement of facts must be put on record. The issues of fact must be ascertained, and made certain, before a court of error can review the decision of an inferior court. If the verdict do not find all the issues, or the agreed statement in the nature of a special verdict be imperfect or incomplete, this court may order a venire de novo, because of the mistrial, as in the case of Graham v. Bayne, ante, p. 60, at this term. But having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error appearing on the face of the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

¶2

The case of Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. 470, is directly in point on this subject.

/59/us/135 · .json · Public domain