By the Louisiana practice, if neither party claims a trial by
jury, the whole case is decided by the court -- matters of fact as
well as of law.
Where, upon such a trial, no testimony is objected to, and it
does not appear that any question of law arose or was decided, and
the case is brought to this Court by writ of error, the judgment of
the court below must be affirmed.
The decision of the court below upon questions of fact is as
conclusive upon this Court as the verdict of a jury would be.
This was a suit brought by Brown, a citizen of Mississippi,
against Bond, as the administrator of Mary Ann Cade, upon a bond
with a collateral condition given by one Witherspoon, for which
Mary Ann Cade was responsible.
The petition set out the bond and the breaches. The defendant
answered, denying some of the material facts stated in the petition
and alleging other facts which, if proved, were sufficient to bar a
recovery. Neither party claimed a trial by jury, and according to
the Louisiana code of practice, articles 494, 495, the whole case
was submitted to the judge.
In February, 1849, the cause came on for trial, and after
argument the court pronounced the following judgment:
"JAMES BROWN"
"v. 1596"
"BOND"
"This cause having been argued and submitted to the court
Page 53 U. S. 255
on a former day on the pleadings, law, and evidence, and the
court having maturely considered the same and being fully advised
in the premises and satisfied that the plaintiff has fully
substantiated the allegations in his petition, it is ordered,
adjudged, and decreed that judgment be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff, James Brown, and against the defendant, Joshua B. Bond,
administrator of the estate of Mary Ann Cade, widow of Elias M.
Witherspoon, for the sum of fourteen thousand dollars, with
interest thereon at the rate of five percentum per annum from the
eleventh day of January in the year eighteen hundred and
thirty-seven until paid, and costs of suit to be taxed."
"Judgment rendered 13 June, 1849."
"Judgment signed 18 June, 1849."
"THEO. H. McCALEB [SEAL]"
"
U.S. Judge"
The defendant sued out a writ of error and brought the case up
to this Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The record in this case is voluminous, but a very brief
statement will show the grounds upon which it is decided in this
Court.
The suit was brought by the defendant in error in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana
upon a bond with a collateral condition. The breaches for which he
sued are set out in the petition. The plaintiff in error answered,
denying some of the material facts stated in the
Page 53 U. S. 256
petition and alleging other facts which, if supported by
testimony, were sufficient to bar the recovery.
Upon these issues the parties proceeded in the case, and
evidence on both sides was offered which is stated at large in the
record. And as neither party demanded a jury, the fact as well as
the law was, according to the Louisiana practice, submitted to the
court.
The plaintiff in error has not presented any argument in this
Court nor assigned any particular error of which he complains. None
of the testimony on either side appears to have been objected to in
the circuit court. Nor does it appear from the pleadings or by
exception or by the opinion of the court that any question of law
arose or was decided in the case. On the contrary, the opinion of
the court, inserted in the record, according to the Louisiana
practice, states that, being satisfied that the defendant in error
had fully substantiated the allegations in his petition, the court
proceeded to give judgment in his favor. The language of the
opinion, when taken in connection with the pleadings and issues,
implies that the case turned upon the comparative weight of the
testimony -- upon the fact and not upon the law. And, whether the
fact was rightly decided or not according to the evidence is not
open to inquiry in this Court. The decision of the court below in
this respect is as conclusive as the verdict of a jury when the
case is brought here by writ of error. And as no error in law
appears in the record, the judgment of the circuit court must
be
Affirmed.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof it is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the
judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is
hereby affirmed with costs and damages at the rate of six percentum
per annum.