BONNIFIELD
v.
PRICE
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.
A writ of error was brought to challenge a judgment from the Wyoming Territorial Supreme Court in a non-jury trial. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ because the proper remedy under the 1874 statute was appeal rather than writ of error, and even if the writ could be treated as an appeal, the record lacked the required statement of facts necessary for the Court to review the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to bring here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Wyoming in a case where the trial was not by jury. It is therefore dismissed on the authority of Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, decided at the present term. The appropriate remedy in this case, under the act of April 7, 1874, ch. 80, Sup. Rev. Stat. .12, was by appeal.
But if we could treat this writ of error as an appeal, thé case is in no condition for examination here, because there is no such statement of facts in the record as the law requires. The bill of exceptions taken in the District Court contains all the evidence, and as-the Supreme Court directed a judgment in.favor of the defendant, it is clear that court passed on other questions than such as were presented on the rulings in the admission of evidence, Under these circumstances a statement of facts such as the statute requires is necessary to enable us to reexamine the case. The writ is dismissed.
Mr. John W. Hammond, Mr. G. TV. Potter and Mr. E. P. Johnson for plaintiff in error. Mr. George F. Price for defendant in error.