Hellis v. Ward - 308 U.S. 365 (1939)


U.S. Supreme Court

Hellis v. Ward, 308 U.S. 365 (1939)

Hellis v. Ward

No. 68

Argued December 6, 1939

Decided December 18, 1939

308 U.S. 365

Syllabus

1. In a suit in equity for specific performance of a contract to purchase an oil lease, the issue was whether a greater sum than had been paid was due, and the decisive question was whether a particular well would produce 3,000 barrels of oil per day. An umpire's report, based on tests made in accordance with the contract, and admitted in evidence without objection, showed that the well would not produce that quantity of oil through a 3/8 inch choke, but would produce in excess of that quantity on open flow. Interpreting the contract to mean that the test was as to the quantity the well would produce through a 3/8 inch choke, the District Court gave judgment for the defendant. The Circuit Court of Appeals, interpreting the contract to mean that the test was what the well would produce on open flow, reversed the District Court and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiff.

Held, that the failure of the Circuit Court of Appeals to remand the case for a

Page 308 U. S. 366

new trial did not deprive the defendant of his day in court in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Saunders v Shaw, 244 U. S. 317, distinguished. P. 308 U. S. 369.

2. The defendant is not entitled here to urge that a new trial should be allowed in order that he may attack the competency and accuracy of the umpire's report when that point was not a ground either of his petition to the Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing or of his petition here for certiorari. P. 308 U. S. 369.

3. Review by certiorari in this Court is confined to the grounds upon which the writ was sought or granted. P. 308 U. S. 370.

102 F.2d 519, affirmed.

Certiorari, post, p. 537, to review the reversal of a judgment, 20 F.Supp. 514, dismissing a suit upon a contract.

Page 308 U. S. 367



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.