Humphreys v. Third Nat. Bank of Cincinnati
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District .of Ohio. This was an action at law by the Third National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, to recover the amount due on 14 promissory notes, aggregating about $24,000, from A. E. Humphreys, a member of the firm of Ira A. Humphreys & Son, who were indorsers on said notes.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Southern District .of Ohio. This was an action at law by the Third National Bank of Cincinnati, Ohio, to recover the amount due on 14 promissory notes, aggregating about $24,000, from A. E. Humphreys, a member of the firm of Ira A. Humphreys & Son, who were indorsers on said notes. The notes were math' by the Boyd Manufacturing Company, a corporation, lo C. VV. and S. G. Boyd as payees, and indorsed by them to Ira A. Humphreys & Son, and by the latter firm indorsed to the Third National Bank. The notes were…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, Circuit Judge
The finding in favor of the plaintiff below was a finding which involved mixed questions of law and fact, and it was general in its form. It is well settled that in such a case nothing is open to review in this court except the rulings of the trial court in the progress of the trial, and that such rulings do not include the general finding of the circuit court, which performs the office and has the effect of a verdict of a jury; that is to say, it is conclusive as to the facts found. The strictness with which this rule is enforced is clearly set forth in the opinion of Judge Burton speaking…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Russell v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Clarke v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Kromer v. . HeimNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States Ex Rel. ForsbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Denver Live Stock Commission Co. v. LeeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- City of Cleveland v. Walsh Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1922
- Lahman v. Burnes Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- George A. Fuller Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1926
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.