CAMPBELL
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1912-03-18
No. 161
224 U.S. 99 Supreme Court of the United States (1912) Caution
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 684 · 32 S. Ct. 398 · 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2283 · SCDB 1911-189
Cited by 76 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

The Supreme Court resolved whether the Circuit Court of Appeals had authority to review the sufficiency of facts found by a District Court that tried an action at law without a jury. The Court held that such trial without a jury was not authorized by statute and thus was not a judicial proceeding subject to appellate review of its factual findings; the appellate court's power was limited to reviewing pure questions of law from the record itself. The Court reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the District Court's judgment, establishing that procedural objections to an answer that were not raised at trial cannot be raised on appeal.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Van Devanter

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action at law against the sureties on the official bond of a receiver of public moneys to recover for a default of their principal. The answer set forth that the defendants had not and could not obtain sufficient information upon which to base a belief respecting the default charged and therefore denied the same, and also interposed an affirmative defense, which need not be specially noticed. The action was begun in the District Court, and was tried to the court without a jury. There was a special finding of the facts, accompanied by conclusions of law, and upon these there was a judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff took the case on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the facts found were insufficient to support the judgment, and reversed the latter with a direction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff upon the finding. 170 Fed. Rep.

318. The defendants then sued out the present writ of error. . At the outset we are confronted with the question of the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment.

Section 566, Rev. Stat., provided that the trial of issues of fact in the District Courts, in all cases except cases in equity and cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except as otherwise provided in proceedings in bankruptcy, should be by jury. This was not one of the excepted cases.

Sections 649 and 700, Rev. Stat., made special provision for the trial by the court, without a jury, of the issues of fact in actions at law in the Circuit Courts, and for the review of the rulings of the court in the progress of such a trial, including the question of the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment; but those sections were in terms limited to cases in the Circuit Courts, and there was no similar provision in respect of cases in the District Courts. In this state of the statute law the trial to the District Court without a jury was in the nature of a submission to an arbitrator, a mode of trial not contemplated by law, and the court’s determination of the issues of fact and of the questions of law supposed to arise upon its special finding was not a judicial determination and therefore was not subject -to reexamination in an appellate court. Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223; Rogers v. United States, 141 U. S.

548. It follows that the Circuit Court of Appeals was without power to consider the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment.

The power of that court was limited to a consideration of such questions of law as may have been presented by the record proper, independently of the special finding, such as whether the pleadings were sufficient to support the judgment. It 'is now said that such a question was presented, and that its right solution required that the judgment of the District Court be reversed. If the answer did not put in issue , the allegation of the complaint respecting the default of the principal in the bond, this claim is well founded; otherwise it is not. The denial of that allegation was predicated upon a statement that the defendants had not and could not obtain “sufficient information” upon which to base a belief respecting its truth. This, it is said, was not an adequate denial, because the state statute (Colo. Code, § 62) required that such a denial be based upon a disavowal of “sufficient knowledge or information.” But of this it is enough to say that no such objection was raised in the District Court, but, on the contrary, the answer was treated as sufficient in that respect. This being so, the plaintiff was not at liberty to raise the objection in an appellate court. Had it been made seasonably it could, and doubtless would, have been avoided by an amendment. Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578, 581; Nashua Savings Bank v. Anglo-American Co., 189 U. S. 221, 231.

It results that the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the judgment of the District Court.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

  • LAW v. United States, 266 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1925)
    …f the motion for special findings. It did not except thereto. Whether special findings can ever avail where there was no stipulation in-writing waiving the jury, we need not consider. Compare Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Campbell v. United States, 224 U. S. 99; Cleveland v. Walsh Construction Co., 279 Fed. 57, 60-63. Reversed.…
  • Prendergast v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 262 U.S. 43 (U.S. 1923)
    …tionality of the orders of the Commission. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290. 2. The defendants answered the bill on the merits without questioning in any way the sufficiency or form of its averments. See Campbell v. United States, 224 U. S. 99, 106. The bill specifically alleged that the cost of the Company’s property in the State devoted to the rendition of intrastate telephone service, the cost of its reproduction, and its fair and reasonable value exceeded the sums of $247,000,000, $37…
  • Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1929)
    …t of time. In this situation the defendants concede that they are bound by the findings. The plaintiff contends that this Court may not examine the findings to determine whether they support the judgment, and he relies on Campbell v. United States, 224 U. S. 99. That was a common law case in a District Court at a time when no provision for waiver of a jury or for findings of fact by such court had been made by statute. Since then, §§ 649 and 700 of the Revised Statutes have been extended to District Courts…

Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (28 total)

View all 28 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw