Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

137 U.S. 576

34 L. Ed. 788

Docket No. 109.

Lloyd v. McWilliams

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued and submitted December 10, 1890.

Decided December 15, 1890.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1890-12-15

This was an action to recover duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. When the cause was reached on the docketargument was begun on the part of the plaintiff in error; but the court interrupted the counsel and declined to hear further argument. The case is stated in the opinion.

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In this cause trial by jury was waived by agreement of tbe parties in writing, duly filed, and tbe case was tried by tbe court. But tbe record discloses no finding upon tbe facts, either general or special, in accordance with tbe statute (Rev. St. §§ 649, 700), and no questions are therefore open to our revision as an appellate tribunal. “As tbe Circuit Court bad jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, its judgment must be presumed to be right, and on that ground affirmed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Fellman v. Royal Ins. Co.

Relies on Ambler v. Eppinger

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 8–0 · Decided 1890-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1980 · most notably British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co. (1891), Hicks v. Guinness (1925)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

901890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

¶1ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND.

¶2When a trial by jury in a Circuit Court is waived by agreement, and the case is tried by the court, no questions are open for revision here, unless the record shows a finding of facts in accordance with the provisions of Rev. Stat. §§ 649, 700; and in such case, when brought here, the judgment of the Circuit Court will be presumed to be right and will be affirmed, if it appears' that that court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties.

¶3This was an action to recover duties alleged to have been illegally exacted. When the cause was reached on the docketargument was begun on the part of the plaintiff in error; but the court interrupted the counsel and declined to hear further argument. The case is stated in the opinion.

¶4Mr. J. P. Tucker for plaintiff in error. Mr. Charles Levi Woodburry was with him.

¶5Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for defendant in error.

¶6*577Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.

¶8In this cause, trial by jury was waived by agreement of the parties in writing, duly filed, and the case was tried by the court. But the record discloses no finding upon the facts, either general or special, in accordance with the statute, (B.ev. Stat. §§ 649, 7Ó0,) and no questions are therefore open to our revision as an appellate tribunal.

¶9As the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, its judgment must be presumed to be right, and on that ground Affirmed.

/137/us/576 · .json · Public domain