Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

56 F. 782

Docket No. 67.

Farwell v. Sturges

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided January 18, 1893.)

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1893-01-18

<p>Review ox Appeal — Findings of Fact.</p> <p>In actions at law, findings of fact by the court are not reviewable on appeal. Reed v. Sta.pp, 3 C. C. A. 244, 62 Fed. Rep. 641, followed.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1897

3 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Burton v. Driggs · Reed v. Stapp

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1893-01-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Review ox Appeal — Findings of Fact.

¶2In actions at law, findings of fact by the court are not reviewable on appeal. Reed v. Sta.pp, 3 C. C. A. 244, 62 Fed. Rep. 641, followed.

¶3In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

¶4Action by Bessie M. Sturges against John V. Farwell. Plaintiff obtained judgment. Defendant brings error.

¶5Affirmed.

¶6George F. Westover and James L. High, for plaintiff in error.

¶7Henry S. Monroe, for defendant in error.

¶8Before WOODS, Circuit Judge, and JENKINS and BAKER, District Judges.

¶9PER CURIAM.

¶10In this case a jury was waived, and the court below made a special finding- of the facts. The finding is in all -respects supported by evidence, though in some particulars the testimony is conflicting. Questions of fact only are urged upon oiir consideration. It is well settled that findings of fact by the court, in cases at law:, like the verdict of a jury, cannot be re*783viewed on. appeal or wilt of error. Reed v. Stapp, 3 C. C. A. 244, 52 Fed. Rep. 641, and cases cited. The judgment below is therefore affirmed, with interest and costs, and with 2 per cent, damages.

/56/f1d/782 · .json · Public domain