RAIMOND
v.
TERREBONNE PARISH
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision in a dispute involving Raimond and Terrebonne Parish but declined to review the merits because the record lacked proper documentation of the facts. The Court held that when cases are submitted to appellate review, either a statement of facts by the parties or findings by the trial court must present ultimate facts raising questions of law only, not recitations of evidence or conflicting testimony, and the record here failed to meet this requirement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray,
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
Assuming the agreement in writing, waiving a jury, and submitting the case to the decision of the Circuit Court, to have been seasonably filed, the record is not in such a shape as to authorize this court to review that decision.
By the settled construction of the acts of Congress defining the appellate jurisdiction of this court, either a statement of facts by the parties, or a finding of facts by the Circuit Court, is strictly analogous to a special verdict, and must state the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only, and not be a recital of evidence or of circumstances, -which may tend to prove the ultimate facts, or from which they may be inferred. Burr v. Des Moines Co., 1 Wall. 99; Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670.
In the present case, the pleadings present issues of fact. There is no bill of exceptions. The so-called statement of facts is mainly a recapitulation of evidence introduced by the partibs at the trial. ' The case was not submitted to the decision of the court upon that statement only, but the court made a further finding, as to what took place at the trial. That finding merely states that the parties admitted that, so far as the facts were stated in a certain reported opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, they were a correct statement of the facts of this case; but that each party claimed that there existed additional facts, as to which there is no finding. On referring to that opinion, such facts as are there stated appear to be scattered through it, intermingled with statements of conflicting evidence, and with the court’s conclusions of fact upon that evidence, as well as with its conclusions of law. Rabasse v. Police Jury of Terrebonne Parish, 30 La. Ann. 287.
In short, there is nothing in the present case, which can be called, in any legal or proper sense, either a statement of facts by the parties, or a finding of facts by the court; and no question of law is presented in such a form as to authorize this court to consider it.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Fleischmann Constr. Co. v. United States to the Use of Forsberg, 270 U.S. 349 (U.S. 1926)…ues of law and fact and giving the reasons for his conclusion, is not a special finding of facts within the meaning of the statute. Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44, 51; Dickinson v. Planters’ Bank, 16 Wall. 250, 257; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192, 194; British Mining Co. v. Baker Mining Co., 139 U. S. 222; York v. Washburn (C. C. A.), 129 Fed. 564, 566; United States v. Stock Yards Co. (C. C. A.), 167 Fed. 126, 127. And it is settled by repeated decisions, that in the absence of special fi…
-
White v. United States, 48 F.2d 178 (10th Cir. 1931)…, as distinguished from the evidentiary facts. Wilson v. Merchants’ Co., supra; United States Trust Co. v. New Mexico, supra; Kentucky L. & A. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton (C. C. A.) 63 F. 93; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U., S. 192, 194, 10 S. Ct. 57, 33 L. Ed. 309; Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 472, 16 S. Ct. 1064, 41 L. Ed. 230; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards (C. C. A. 8) 167 F. 126; United States v. Smith (C. C. A. 1) 39 F.(2d) 851, 854. An exception is not a prerequisite to a review of the ques…
-
British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1891)…ll. 237; Norris v. Jackson, 9 [*223] Wall. 125; Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285; Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U. S. 192; Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U. S. 576. The record raises no questions open to revision by us and the judgment is Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125 (U.S. 1869)
- Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U.S. 670 (U.S. 1885)
- Burr v. The Des Moines R.R. & Navigation Co., 1 Wall. 99 (U.S. 1863)