EX PARTE FRENCH
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The finding brought here., for review was special, and met only a part of the issues: If the conclusion of law to which the .court came was correct, the other issues were immaterial. The case, was-disposed of without reaching them. We have, however, determined that the facts íoünd were not sufficient to justify the conclusion reached;- and have ordered the court to proceed with the case, notwithstanding the finding. -In effect; we have decided that the. court erred in not proceeding tó try the other issues. Our action only precludes that-court from adjudging in favor of the defendants upon the special facts, found and sent here for our opinion. In all other respects, it is at liberty to proceed in such manner as, according .to its. judgment, justice may require. •
The petition for a mandamus is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1884)…ouis v. Zebley, 110 U. S. 321. The trial being without error, if the finding is sufficient, the same judgment is to be given as would be given on a special verdict. Where the special finding embraces only a part of the issues, as in Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423, a different rule prevails. Accordingly, The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that, court, with direction to enter a judg- . menifor the plaintiff’, on bond No. 78,for $500, xoith proper interest thereon, less…
-
Allen v. ST. Louis Bank, 120 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1887)…ial verdict, are sufficient in law to support " the judgment, may be reviewed on writ of error without any bill of exceptions. Act of March. 3, 1865, c. 86, § 4, 13 Stat. 501; Rev. Stat. §§ 649, 700; French v. Edwards, 21 Wall. 147; Ex parte French, 91 U. S. 423. The question i whether the facts found by the court in' the case at bar .are sufficient to support the judgment below includes the several questions of law affecting the merits of the case. That .judgment is for more than $5000, which is sufficient…
-
THE E. A. Packer, 140 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1891)…power of this court to review extends only to the sufficiency of the facts found to support the judgment, Tyng v. Grinnell, 92 U. S. 467; and if not sufficient, the case may be remanded for trial upon other issues involved therein. Ex’parte French, 91 U. S. 423. The findings of the court under these sections are treated as a special verdict, arid áre gauged by the rules applicable to them, Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Copelin v. Insurance Co., 9 Wall. 461, 467; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 103 U. S. 554; a…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- French v. Edwards, 21 Wall. 147 (U.S. 1874)