Case Name: SAMUEL KAHN, Appellant, v. THE CENTRAL SMELTING COMPANY et al., Respondents
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1880-06
Citations: 2 Utah 371
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAMUEL KAHN, Appellant, v. THE CENTRAL SMELTING COMPANY et al., Respondents,
Judges: 
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 371–383

Head Matter:
SAMUEL KAHN, Appellant, v. THE CENTRAL SMELTING COMPANY et al., Respondents,
1. Decision of the Court — Finding.—Where the trial of a cause is had before the court, sitting without a jury, the decision in such case, under § 180 of the Practice Act, consists of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Such findings are the foundation for the judgment, of the court and must precede it.
2. Findings, How Reviewed. — When one of the errors assigned on appeal is “-that the evidence does not support the findings,” or “that the findings are not in accordance with the evidence,” such error cannot be reviewed unless the findings are brought into the record on motion for a new trial.
8. Queue. — Whether such findings could be reviewed on a statement on appeal from the judgment not discussed.
4. Additional Findings — When Stricken Out. — The additional findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in a cause, after the original finding had been filed and judgment had been entered thereon, form no part of the transcript on appeal from the judgment roll alone, and will on motion he stricken out of the record.
5. Additional Findings. — It is not competent for the court, after making its findings, and after judgment has been entered thereon, to supplement them by additional findings.
6. Partnership, Finding of. — A finding “that there was no partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants,” is not a conclusion of law, but is a finding of fact. (Boreman, J., dissenting.)
Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court.
The case was submitted on November 17, 1877, and on November 21, 1877, the court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the same day the judge rendered a written opinion in the case.
On the 5th day of December, 1877, at the request of plaintiff, and after the judgment had been entered upon the former finding, the court caused other findings to be filed in the cause. Both sets of findings were incorporated in the trancript on the appeal, which is on the judgment roll alone.
At the January term, 1878, when the ease was called for argument in the Supreme Court, the respondent moved to strike from the transcript the additional findings filed on the 5th day of December, 1877.
The other facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Robertson <& McBride and Frank Hoffman, for appellant.
There is no finding of the facts put in issue by the pleadings in this case. The finding that there was “ no partnership between the plaintiff and defendants ” is but a conclusion of law from facts. 19 Cal. 104; 28 Cal. 301; 30 Cal. 228; 33 Cal. 247; 42 Cal. 375; 39 Cal. 262; 3 Cal. Ill, 408; 2 Cal. 306.
The second finding is equally defective. It is: “ That there was no such co-tenancy between plaintiff and defendants in the mine in controversy, as entitled the plaintiff to an account.” This is conclusive of law, and neither of these findings show that a single fact was proved.
Marshall da Boyle, for respondents.
"What a special verdict shall contain is stated in § 174 of the Cal. Pr. Act, and in § 175 of the Utah Pr. Act, as follows:
“The special verdict shall present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove them,” etc.
‘ Breeze v. Doyle, 19 Cal., 105, is cited in appellant’s brief. We also cite it as giving one test of the sufficiency of findings. That court says: “The test then of the sufficiency of the findings of fact in a court is this, would they answer if presented by a jury in the form of a special verdict?” Then follows the statutory definition of a special verdict. See also Hihn v. Peek, 30 Cal. 286; Jones v. Block, 30 Cal. 229.
The requirements as to findings is very clearly and satisfactorily set forth in Mathews v. Kinsell, 41 Cal. 514. See also McEwcm v. Johnson, 7 Cal. 260.
Webster defines “ Ultimate”: “ (1) Furthest, most remote, extreme; (2) final, being that to which all the rest is directed as to the main object, the ultimate end of our actions should be the glory of God, etc.; (3) last in the train of consequences.”
Sec. 175 of our Pr. Act speaks of “ conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence to prove. them.”
Findings should contain “ ultimate facts,” “ conclusions of facts,” and by steadily keeping the definitions of these words in our minds we cannot go astray, when we come to test the findings of the court in this case by them.
Without a motion for a new trial, the findings of the court are conclusive. Gagliardo v. Hoberlvn>, 18 Cal. 395; Herriter v. JPorter, 23 Cal. 388.
If the findings are within the issues and consistent with the judgment, and if the facts found can constitute the'basis of a judgment, it is sufficient. . It is not required that the court shall find as to all the facts put in the issue by the pleadings. Lyons v. Leimbaclc, 29 Cal. 140; James v. Williams, 31 Cal. 213.
Test these findings by the rule laid down in Lyons v. Leim-baclc, 29 Cal. 140, that only those facts need be found which were necessary to constitute a basis for a judgment, “ and, if for the defendants, that the facts found and those admitted should constitute a defense to the action.”
Our position is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to show any liability between plaintiff and defendants as tenants in common. Put if it should be held otherwise, the same reasoning applicable to the partnership can, with the same effect, be applied to the tenancy in common. If this suit was between tenants in common, as such, the action should have been at law and not in equity. Pico v. Golumbat, 12 Cal. 414; Barnvm v. Landon, 25 Conn. 137.

Opinion:
EmersoN, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court, Sciiaeffeb, C. J., concurring, and Bobemau, J., dissenting:
A motion is made to strike from the transcript on appeal the portion thereof headed " findings of fact at the request of plaintiff," on the ground that they are not properly a part of the record.
It appears that the case was tried by the court without a jury. The cause was submitted on the 17th November, 1877. Three days thereafter, on the 21 st, the court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and- a judgment for the defendants entered on that day. The plaintiff excepted to the findings generally, as appears by the record. On the 5th day of December following, the plaintiff presented the findings covered by this motion, and at his request they were signed by the court. It was understood upon the argument, although not a part of the record, that these additional findings were presented to the attorneys for the respondents, and they were asked to consent to them, which they declined to do.
The question is, are these additional findings under these circumstances properly a part of the record?
Sec. 180 of the Practice Act provides that " upon the trial of an issue of fact by the court, its decision shall be given in writing and filed with the clerk within ten days after the tidal shall have taken place. In giving the decision, the facts found and the conclusions of law shall be separately stated. Judgment upon the decision shall be entered accordingly."
The decision consists of the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judgment is entered upon that decision. It is apparent, therefore, that whatever of findings there are in a case must, under the provisions of our act, precede and are the foundation for the judgment.
When the objection is that the evidence does not support the findings, or that the findings are not in accordance with the evidence, it must be brought into the record on a motion for a new trial. The appeal is from the findings and judgment made and entered on the 21st November. There is no statement on appeal, and there was no motion for a new trial.
In the case of Snell v. Cisler, 1 Utah, 298, this court decided that it would not review the facts unless a motion for a new trial was made, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict or findings, and then only on an appeal from the order made on such a motion. James v. Williams, 31 Cal. 211; Cowing v. Rogers, 34 Cal. 648.
The additional findings cannot be regarded as a statement, - because the statutory mode pointed out for making them such has not been followed.
We do not think it is competent for the court, under our Practice Act, after making his findings, and judgment has been entered thereon, to supplement them at the request of a party by additional findings; the trial is then ended. The motion to strike the additional findings from the transcript is granted.
This motion being disposed of, the only question in the case is, do the findings support the judgment? The findings of the court are as follows, viz.:
First — That there was no partnership between plaintiff and defendants, as charged in the complaint.
Second — That there was no such co-tenancy between plaintiff and defendants in the mine in controversy as entitled the plaintiff to an account.
That the plaintiff has no right to recover in this action, and that the suit should be dismissed.
It is claimed on the part of the appellant that the first finding of fact is a conclusion of law; that the facts going to establish or disprove the existence of the partnership should have been found. From an examination of the complaint it is apparent that the fact which the plaintiff seeks to establish in the case is that there was a partnership existing between him and the defendants; that a certain mine was worked by them as partners, and the conclusion of law following would be in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, that they should account to him for ore extracted from the mine during the existence of that partnership.
The fact that there was a partnership is the ultimate fact alleged in the complaint. There are certain acts and condi tions and circumstances set out in the complaint, from which this ultimate fact is deduced; that is, there is in the complaint much detail of mere evidentiary facts. The material issue of fact is, however, was there a partnership? And the findings respond to this issue. This was the ultimate fact to be ascertained, and it is none the less a finding of fact because drawn as a conclusion from other facts. Jones v. Clark, 21 Cal. 132.
The judgment is in accordance with the findings and is supported by it.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.