UNITED STATES
v.
CLARK
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.
In United States v. Clark, the Supreme Court reversed a judgment from the Court of Claims because the court's special finding of facts omitted a critical element—the amount of loss sustained—even though this amount appeared in the judgment and the court's opinion. The Court held that appellate review requires a complete special finding of all material facts necessary to support the judgment, and that it could not supply missing factual findings on appeal but must remand the case for the Court of Claims to issue a proper special verdict.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
Our rules regulating appeals from the Court of Claims require that the record shall contain, among other things, “ a finding by the Court of Claims of the facts in the case established by the evidence, in the nature of a special verdict, but not the evidence establishing them, and a separate statement of the conclusions of law upon said facts on which the court founds its judgment or decree. The finding of facts and conclusions of law to be certified to this court as a part of the record.” Rule 1, sect. 2.
The act of Congress under which this action was prosecuted does not dispense with these requirements. The Court of Claims should, therefore, have found, among other things, the amount of the loss which had been sustained. It is stated in the judgment as entered in form, and alluded to in the opinion of the court, but is entirely omitted from the special finding, which is to be in the nature of a special verdict. It is oui duty to apply the law to the fac.ts as found, and not to decide upon the weight of the evidence.
Upon the facts set forth in the special finding this judgment cannot be sustained, because of the omission to state the amount of the loss. In our action upon the appeal we do not look beyond the finding.
Judgment reversed on account of an insufficient finding, and cause remanded for such further proceedings as law and justice may require.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Clark, 96 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1877)…[*38] Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court. This is' an appeal from the Court of Claims, and very few.' cases involving no' larger sum of money have given us more trouble. It was'before us at the last term, and is reported. .94 U. S. 73. Upon an examination of the record, after the case had been submitted to us, it was discovered that on an essential fact in issue the Court of Claims had made no finding, but had sent us the evidence on that point. The judgment was therefore reverse…