The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1914-07-16

facts which may be either general OF
Especial, shall have the same effect as
the verdict OF a jury" Section TOO
l.'When an issue Of fact in any civil
cause In circuit court is tried and
determined by the court without the
intervention Of jury. according to
Esection GAG, the rulings Of the court
in the progress Of the trial of the
cause, II excepted to at the time and
duly presented by bill of exceptions,
may be reviewed by the supreme
court upon writ of error or upon ap-
peal, and when the finding is special,
the review may extend to the determ.
nation of the suficiency Of the facts
found to support the judgment"
1.-THE provision of section 1O11, re-
vised statutes, continues in force and
forbids reversal Of the judgment OF
the circuit court for any error of fact
Upon the Issues Of fact raised by the
pleadings in this case, there was a
general finding for the plaintiff. The
defendant contends that the evidence
submitted to the court did not justify
this general finding. But, If thasAnd-
ing depends upon the Weighing OF
conflicting evidence. It was decision
on the facts, the revision of which is
forbidden to this court by section 1011.
II the question was whether all the
evidence was sufficient in law to war
rant finding for the plaintiff, he
should have presented that question,
by request for definite ruling upon
that point.
Sections e49 and 700 were first full
ly construed by the court in Norris v.
Jackson, Wall, 125 (76 u s., XIX,
60S). The court in that case, speak
ing by Mr.. Justice Miller. laid down
the following propositions: 81, II
the verdict be general verdict. only
such rulings Of the court in the pro-
gress of the trial can be reviewed as
are presented by bill Of exceptions, or
are presented by the pleadings; 2, in
such cases bill of exceptions cannot
be used to bring up the whole testi-
mony for review any more than in a
jury trial; 3, if the parties desire a
review of the law involved in the
case, they must either get the court
to find a special verdict which raises
the legal propositions, or they must
present to the court their propositions
of law and require the court to rule
on them; 4, objection to the admis.
sion or exclusion of evidence, or to
such rulings on the propositions of
law as the party may ask, must appear
by bill of exceptions" These propo.
sitions have been persistingly ad-
hered to by this court. Thus, in Miller
v. ms. Co., IL Wall, 29S co U. s.. Xxx.
40O,) it was said: "The finding of
the court, II general, cannot be review
ed in this court by bill OF exceptions
or In any other manner"
In Ins. Co. v. Folsom. 10 WALL, 237
(S5 U. S., XXI, s27), the court said:
When the finding is general, the
parties are concluded by the dsterm-
nation of the court, except in cases
where exceptions are taken to the rul-
ings of the court in the progress of
the trial. When a case is
tried by the court without jury, a
bill of exceptions brings up nothing
for revision except what it would
have done had there been jury trial."
so in Cooper v. Omohundro, -
WALL, 65 CSC U. S., XXI, 40 this
court, affirming the case last cited
held that when issues of fact are sub
mitted to the circuit court, and the
finding is general, nothing is open to
review except the rulings of
the court in the progress of the trial.
and the phrase rulings Of the court
in the progress Of the trial does not
include the general finding Of the cir
cult court, nor the conclusions Of the
circuit court embodied in such gen.
eral finding" See, also, Town OF
Ohio v. Marcy Is Wall, $50 (s5 u. s.
XXI, S13); ms. Co. VS.. Sea q Wall,
1853 (ss U. s. xxi. Sly; Jennisons v.
Leonard, H., sO2 (sS U. S. XXI, 439);
Tuing v. Grinnell, 90 U. s., 467 (XXIII,
1887: the Abbotsford, SO U. S.. 44o
(Xxv, 1861; Otoe Co. v. Baldwin
(ante, 33D.
1.-THE proposition that the general
finding of the court in this case is
open to review is in direct opposition
to the rulings of the court in the cases
cited. The plaintiff in error seeks to
make the question whether the evil
dence set out in the bill Of exceptions
justified the finding by the court for
the plaintiff, on the issue of fact rails
ed by the pleadings. This is, in de-
fance of the decision Of this court
that 1t cannot be done, an attempt up
on general finding to bring up the
whole testimony for review by a bill
of exceptions.
1.-THE theory of the plaintiff in error
seems to be that the general finding
In this case like general verdict, in
cludes questions of both law and fact,
and that, by excepting to the general
finding, he excerpts to such conclus-
ions of law as the general finding i'm
plies. But section 649, revised stat
utes. provides that the finding of the
court. whether general or special,