Court Opinion

ID: 6867840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 20:56:57.494711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:21.254653
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
It appearing to the court upon a consideration of this case that a jury was waived and' the cause tried to the court, that there was only a general finding and judgment in favor of appellees, that there was no request for any special findings of fact, and of course no exception for a failure to find specific facts, that there was no proposition of law presented to the court by motion for judgment with request for a ruling thereon, and that there is therefore no reviewable question presented in the record [see Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 356, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed. 624; Lewellyn, Collector, v. Electric Reduction Co., 275 U.S. 243, 248, 48 S.Ct. 63, 72 L.Ed. 262; Law v. United States, 266 U.S. 494, 45 S.Ct. 175, 69 L.Ed. 401; Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Pearson, 37 F.(2d) 896 (C.C.A. 6); Fordson Coal Co. v. Wilson, 39 F.(2d) 55 (C.C.A. 6); May v. Marbury, 39 F.(2d) 438 (C.C.A. 6); Wynne v. Fries, 50 F.(2d) 761 (C.C.A. 6); Brown v. Harvey Coal Corp., 61 F.(2d) 624 (C.C.A. 6) ; Rose v. United States, 69 F.(2d) 966 (C.C.A. 6); Humphreys v. Third National Bank, 75 F. 852, 855 (C.C.A. 6)],
It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.
Judgment of District Court affirmed.