1. A judgment will not be reversed because the court below erred
in directing the order in which the evidence was introduced unless
it clearly appears that the complaining party was thereby
injured.
2. An objection to matters which was not brought to the
attention of the court below will not be considered here.
3. The finding below covering all the issues is conclusive, and
where a request for special findings was refused, this Court will
assume that they were not established by the evidence.
Davis, having obtained a judgment against Wellington A.
Fredericks, sued out a writ of attachment by way of execution,
which Clark, the Sheriff of Gallatin County, Montana Territory,
levied upon some personal chattels alleged to belong to the
judgment debtor, but which his wife claimed were her separate
property. This suit was therefore brought in the district court of
that county, by her against Clark and Davis, to recover possession
of the chattels or their value in case the delivery of them could
not be had.
There was a judgment for the plaintiff, which was, on appeal,
affirmed by the supreme court of the territory. Clark and Davis
sued out this writ.
The assignment of errors is set out in the opinion of the
Court.
Page 105 U. S. 5
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The errors assigned in this case are:
1. That Mrs. Fredericks, when on the stand as a witness in her
own behalf, was not permitted to answer certain questions put to
her on crossexamination;
2. That the court did not separate its findings of fact from its
conclusions of law, and,
3. That the court did not find the distinct facts requested by
the plaintiffs in error.
As to the first assignment, it is sufficient to say that no harm
could have resulted from the ruling on the crossexamination, as in
a subsequent stage of the case, when the questions were clearly
proper, the witness testified fully as to all the matters
originally inquired about. A judgment will not be reversed because
of an error of the court in directing as to the order in which
testimony shall be introduced unless it clearly appears that the
complaining party has been injured by what was done.
The matter referred to in the second assignment does not seem to
have been brought to the attention of either of the courts below,
and the objection now made comes too late in this court for the
first time. If the defect complained of had been specifically
pointed out to the district court when the findings were filed, it
would no doubt have been corrected. There is nothing in all this
very confused record to indicate that the point was ever made until
the brief for the plaintiffs in error was filed here.
The findings are conclusive as to the facts, and they cover all
the issues. Whether the distinct facts set forth in the requests
for findings presented by the plaintiffs in error were proved or
not we need not inquire. As the court declined to find them, we
must assume they were not established by the evidence.
This record is so confused as to be almost unintelligible. If
counsel here had been less careful in the presentation of the
questions raised for our reexamination, we should have declined to
consider the case on this account.
Judgment affirmed.
