257 F.1d 302 - Kindred v. Black — 257 F. 302

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1975

6 federal appellate · 5 district ·

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.

¶1Appeal and Error <§=»849(1)—Review—Cause Tried to Court.

¶2Where an action at law was tried to the court, jury being waived, a general finding for one party made, with no requests for general or special findings or declarations of law by the other party, the appellate court can review only the rulings of the trial court on the admission and exclusion of evidence.

¶3In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri.

¶4Action at law by William U. Black against Uuther P. Kindred. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6Charles W. German, of Kansas City, Mo. (James F. Getty, of Kansas City, Kan., and Haff, Meservey, German & Michaels,- of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

¶7Roland Plughes and Francis M. Wilson, both of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant in error.

¶8Before CA-RFAND, Circuit Judge, and AMIDON, District Judge.

¶9CARLAND, Circuit Judge.

¶10Black sued Kindred to recover damages for false representations in the sale of real estate. A jury being waived, the case whs tried to the court, with the result of a general finding for the plaintiff. There were no requests to find either generally or specially, or any requests to declare the law, made by Kindred. In this state of the record there is nothing for us to review, except errors in the exclusion or admission of evidence, and the error in this behalf specified and discussed in the brief has no merit. Section 700, Rev. Stat. (Comp. St. § 1668); Keely v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598; Mason v. United States, 135 C. C. A. 315, 219 Fed. 547.

¶11Judgment affirmed.