ALBERT H. GUILD AND JOHN F. LIGHTNER, PARTNERS IN TRADE, UNDER THE FILM OF GUILD AND LIGHTNER, AND HENRY HUGG AND ROBERT G. HANNA, PARTNERS IN TRADE, UNDER THE STYLE AND FIRM OF HENRY HUGG AND CO., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JOSEPH FRONTIN
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.
Guild and Lightner and Henry Hugg and Co. appealed a judgment rendered by a California state court that had tried the case without a jury, but the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment because the appellants failed to comply with procedural requirements for reviewing cases on writ of error. The Court held that when parties waive jury trial and submit both facts and law to the court, a special verdict or agreed statement of facts must be placed on record before an appellate court can review the decision on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
The record and proceedings in this case are in conformity with the practice of the state courts of California. It was tried without the intervention of a jury, and the testimony, together with the opinion of the court, filed of record. But there is no special verdict, or agreed statement of facts, on which the judgment was rendered; nor is there any bill of exceptions, sealed by the court, to their decision on any question of law. • "We are, in fact, called upon to review the case on the pleadings; exhibits, and testimony, as if it were a bill in chancery. Our very frequent decisions on this subject seem not to.have come to the knowledge of the bar in the court below. Parties may, by consent, waive the trial of issues of fact by a-jury, and submit the trial of both facts and law to the court. It will not be a mistrial. But if they wish the judgment of the court to be reviewed on a writ of error, a special verdict or agreed statement of facts must be put on record. The issues of fact must be ascertained, and made certain, before a court of error can review the decision of an inferior court. If the verdict do not find all the issues, or the agreed statement in the nature of a special verdict be imper- < feet or incomplete, this court may order a venire de novo, because of the mistrial, as in the case of Graham v. Bayne, ante, p. 60, at this term. But having jurisdiction of the cause, and no error appearing on the face of the record, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
The case of Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. 470, is directly in point on this subject.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bond & Another v. Dustin, 112 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1884)…ad no authority to revise its opinion upon the admission or rejection of testimony, or upon any other question of law growing out of the evidence, and therefore, when no other error appeared on the record, must affirm the judgment. Guild v. Frontin, 18 How. 135; Kelsey v. Forsyth, 21 How. 85; Campbell v. Boyreau, 21 How. 223. The reason for this, as stated by Chief Justice Taney in Campbell v. Boyreau, was that “ by the established and familiar rules and principles which govern common-law proceedings, no…
-
Campbell v. United States, 224 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1912)
-
Campbell v. Clement Boyreau, 21 How. 223 (U.S. 1858)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prentice v. Platoff Zane's Administrator, 8 How. 470 (U.S. 1850)