Case Name: SMITH & CO., Limited, v. KINGFALFA MILLS
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1916-10-16
Citations: 237 F. 82
Docket Number: No. 4108
Parties: SMITH & CO., Limited, v. KINGFALFA MILLS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 237
Pages: 82–82

Head Matter:
SMITH & CO., Limited, v. KINGFALFA MILLS.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
October 16, 1916.)
No. 4108.
■ 1.-Appeal and Error <@=>671(3)—Review—Matters Presented for Review.
In an action tried to the court, where there was a general finding and judgment for defendants, and no bill of exceptions disclosing the evidence on which the court acted, or its rulings admitting or rejecting evidence or ‘declarations of law adopted or denied, there was nothing presented for review on writ of error.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 2869; Dec. Dig.. <@=>671(3).]
2. Trial <@=>393(1)—Findings of Fact—What Constitutes.
A memorandum opinion by the trial judge, who, sitting without a jury, found generally for defendant, does not amount to a special finding of facts.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 920; Dee. Dig. <@=>393(1).]
,<g^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska; Thomas C. Munger, Judge.
Action by Smith & Co., Limited, against the Kingfalfa Mills. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Andrew P. Moran, of Nebraska City, Neb. (D. W. Livingston, of Nebraska City, Neb., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Paul Jessen, of Nebraska City, Neb., for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
HOOK, Circuit Judge.
This is a writ of error to review a judgment in an action at law upon contract. The assignments of error relied on challenge proceedings.at the trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. The trial was by the court upon waiver of a jury. The court found generally for the defendant and gave judgment accordingly. It made no special findings of fact. Its memorandum opinion does not fill that office. Tiernan v. Chicago Life Ins. Co., 131 C. C. A. 284, 287, 214 Fed. 238; Keeley v. Mining Co., 95 C. C. A. 96, 169 Fed. 598. There is no bill of exceptions disclosing the evidence upon which the court acted, or rulings admitting or rejecting evidence, or declarations of law adopted or denied. The judgment rendered was within the issues made by the pleadings.
By the long settled practice of the appellate courts of the United States, frequently announced, there is nothing in the record before us which we can review.
The judgment is affirmed.