GLENN
v.
FANT

U.S. | 1890-03-24
No. 357
134 U.S. 398 Supreme Court of the United States (1890) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 969 · 10 S. Ct. 583 · 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1981 · SCDB 1889-183
Cited by 11 cases

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.

Synopsis

In Glenn v. Fant, the Supreme Court held that an "agreed statement of facts" referencing voluminous exhibits from prior equity cases could not substitute for a special verdict or special finding of facts necessary to establish the Court's jurisdiction to review questions of law. The Court affirmed the judgment below, finding that without a proper record of specific factual findings, it could not properly invoke its appellate jurisdiction to determine the legal issues presented.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.

Mr. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.

No bill of exceptions was taken in this case, nor was there any finding of facts by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, nor any case' stated by the parties analogous to á special vérdict and stating the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only. What is styled here an “ agreed. statement, of facts” is an agreement as to certain matters, and that the .parties might refer to and rely upon any and all grounds of action or defence to be found in two voluminous exhibits, marked X and Y, being the records of two equity causes in other -courts, including all the pleadings and evidence, as well as the orders and decrees therein. The effect of .some of that evidence and of the conclusions of fact to be drawn from' it is controverted. It is impossible for us to regard this' stipulation as taking the place of a special verdict of a jury, or a special finding of facts by the court, upon which our jurisdiction could properly be invoked to determine the questions of . law thereon arising. And while the case is governed by the rule laid down in Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223, yet, even if the statutory provisions in relation to the trial of causes without the intervention of a jury by the Circuit Courts of the United States were-applicable, the result upon this record would be the same. Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish , 132 U. S. 192; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604; Lyons v. Lyons Bank, 19 Blatchford, 279.

The judgment must be

Ajfu'med.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co., 139 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1891)
    …[*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.…
  • Wilson v. Merchs'. Loan & Tr. Co. of Chicago, 183 U.S. 121 (U.S. 1901)
    …by the Circuit Court must state the ultimate facts of the case, presenting questions of law only, and not be a recital of evidence or of circum stances'which may tend to prove the ultimate facts or from which they may be inferred. In Glenn v. Fant, 134 U. S. 398, there was a stipulation that the case should be heard upon an agreed statement of facts annexed, with leave to refer to exhibits' filed therewith. It was held that the stipulation could not be regarded as taking the place of a special verdict or of…
  • Campbell v. United States, 224 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1912)

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw