This appeal being from the judgment of a territorial court and
no exceptions to the rulings of the court on the admission or
rejection of testimony being presented for consideration, the court
is limited to a determination of the question whether the facts
found are sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered. And this
must be assumed to be the case, as the so-called statement of facts
is not in compliance with the statute.
The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE:
This appeal being from the judgment of a territorial court, and
no errors having been assigned on exceptions to rulings on the
admission or rejection of testimony, we are limited in our review
to the determination of the question whether the facts found are
sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered.
Gildersleeve v.
New Mexico Mining Company, 161 U. S. 573;
Harrison v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311;
Marshall v. Burtis, 172 U. S. 630.
The opinion of the trial court sets forth facts on which it
proceeds, but there are no specific findings as such.
In the supreme court, the statement of facts is as follows:
"Statement of facts by the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Arizona, sitting as a court of appeal, on the foregoing transcript
on appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District
of the Territory of Arizona in and for the County of Yavapai,
wherein judgment was rendered on a full hearing of the case in said
district court in favor of said appellees and against the said
appellant, as appears from the complete record
Page 180 U. S. 485
of said cause now on file in this Court, and which said judgment
has been brought to this court on appeal by appellant herein."
"The Supreme Court of the Territory of Arizona takes the facts
as certified to by the clerk of the said District Court of Yavapai
County, Arizona Territory, as found in the original papers in said
cause, to-wit, the judgment roll, and forwarded by the said clerk
and now on file in the office of the clerk of this court; also the
minute entries in said cause, certified to by said clerk of said
district court, together with the findings of facts of the court
below, the motion for a new trial, and the reporter's transcript of
the evidence taken on the trial of said cause below, all certified
to by said clerk of said district court as being the whole of the
record of said cause, and also the assignment of errors filed by
appellant herein and contained in his brief on file herein, and the
facts shown by the whole record herein as the facts shown in this
cause and makes the same the statement of facts as found in the
transcript in this cause the facts as found in this case."
"That from such transcript and from the same as the statement of
facts herein this Court finds that the said district court did not
commit error in rendering judgment against the said appellant and
in favor of said appellees; that the said appellees were the owners
of all the right, title, and interest in the Poland and Hamilton
mining claims, free from any claim of appellant."
"And the supreme court further finds that the judgment of the
said district court should be affirmed, and therefore affirms the
same."
This is not in compliance with the statute in that behalf, and
as we must assume that the evidence sustained the judgment, that
judgment is
Affirmed.