Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/266/494/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:22:29+00:00

Document:
1. A judgment of the district court based on a general finding for the plaintiff in a law case tried without a jury is not reviewable in the circuit court of appeals upon the ground that the plaintiff's evidence failed to sustain the cause of action pleaded by the complaint. P. 266 U. S. 496.
The court of appeals held that the motion should have been granted. Its judgment must be reversed, and that of the district court must stand, because the case was tried without a jury and there was only the general finding for the plaintiff. Neither the evidence nor the questions of law presented by it were reviewable by the court of appeals. To inquire into the facts and the conclusions of law on which the judgment of the lower court rests was not permissible. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Boardman v. Toffey, 117 U. S. 271. The bill of exceptions and the assignment of errors do not attempt to present any other question which is substantial. The petition confessedly set forth a good cause of action. The district court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter. Its decision is final.
The jurisdiction possessed was that to be exercised in accordance with the laws governing the usual procedure of the court in actions at law for money compensation. Crouch v. United States, ante, 266 U. S. 180; United States v. Pfitsch, 256 U. S. 547, 256 U. S. 552. The district court, having erroneously decided that it was the exceptional jurisdiction concurrent with the Court of Claims, granted the government's motion to sit without a jury. Of this error the government cannot complain. Nor can it complain of the denial by the trial court of 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 79 U. S. Case, 12 Wall. 275; Campbell v. United States, 224 U. S. 99; Cleveland v. Walsh Construction Co., 279 F. 57, 60-63.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.