CLARK
v.
FREDERICKS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Clark v. Fredericks, the Supreme Court addressed three assignments of error from a trial court decision, including claims that a witness was improperly restricted during cross-examination, that findings of fact were not separated from conclusions of law, and that specific requested findings were not made. The Court affirmed the judgment, holding that no reversible error occurred because the witness later testified fully on the disputed matters, the objection to the commingling of findings was raised for the first time on appeal and too late to be considered, and the trial court's findings of fact were conclusive on all issues in the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The errors assigned in this case are: —
1. That Mrs. Fredericks, when on the stand as a witness in her own behalf, was not permitted to answer certain questions put to her on cross-examination ;
2. That the court did not separate its findings of fact from its. conclusions of law; and,
- 3. That the court did not find the distinct facts requested-by the plaintiffs in error. As to the first assignment, it is sufficient to say that no harm could have resulted from the ruling on the cross-examination, as in a subsequent stagé of the case, when the questions were clearly prope'r, the witness testified fully as to all the matters originally inquired about. A judgment will not be reversed because of an error of the court in directing as to the order in which testimony shall be introduced, unless it clearly appears that the complaining party has been injured by what was done'.
The matter referred to in the second assignment does not seem to have been brought to the attention of either of the courts belowj and the objection now made comes too late in this court for the first time. If the defect complained of had been specifically pointed Out to the District Court when the findings were filed, it would no doubt have been corrected. There is nothing in all this very confused record to indicate that the point was ever made until' the brief for the plaintiffs in error was filed here.
. The findings are conclusive as to the facts, and they cover all the issues. Whether the distinct facts set forth in the requests for -findings presented by the plaintiffs in error were proved or not we need not inquire. As the court declined to find them, we must assume they were not established by the evidence.
This record is so confused as to be almost unintelligible. If counsel here had been less careful in the presentation of the questions raised for our re-examination, we should have declined to consider the ease on this -account.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Gazelle & Cargo, 128 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1888)
-
Robinson & Co. v. Belt, 187 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1902)…ised for the first time in this court. Insurance Co. v. Mordecai, 22 How. 111, 117; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Wheeler v. Sedgwick, 94 U. S. 1; Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. S. 572; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532; Clark v. Fredericks, 105 U. S. 4. While it is the duty of this court to review the action of Subordinate courts, justice to those courts requires that their alleged errors should be called directly to their attention, and that their action should not be reversed upon questions whi…
-
Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Landis, 231 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1913)…es, with respect to the number of years which should be deemed to constitute the deceased’s expectation of life, concededly was not presented to the court below and, being raised in this court for the first time, comes too late. Clark v. Fredericks, 105 U. S. 4; Robinson & Co. v. Belt, 187 U. S. 41, 50. The remaining assignments of error involve a question of appellate practice in the Supreme Court of the Territory. That court held, with respect to the action of the trial court in permitting answers to ce…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence