Supreme Court of the United States, 1886

Boardman v. Toffey

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 15, 1886 · Waite

117 U.S. 271; 6 S. Ct. 734; 29 L. Ed. 898; 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1835 (United States Reports)

Counsel

■ Mr. James B. Vredenburgh for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief., Mr. Preston Stevenson for defendant in er-ror.

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

Merriam v. Huselton (8th Cir. 1930)
United States v. Bridget M. Denny-Shaffer (10th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Shingle (9th Cir. 1937)
City of Woodward v. Caldwell (10th Cir. 1936)
Lyle v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (8th Cir. 1934)
First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corp. of New York (9th Cir. 1931)
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1929)
United States v. Gordin (6th Cir. 1925)
T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates (7th Cir. 1922)
Mason v. United States (8th Cir. 1915)
Porter v. F. M. Davies & Co. (8th Cir. 1915)
Pennsylvania Casualty Co. v. Whiteway (9th Cir. 1914)
National Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. Hendrie & Bolthoff Mfg. & Supply Co. (8th Cir. 1912)
Paul v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York 1904)
McCrea v. Parsons (7th Cir. 1902)
Barnard v. Randle (8th Cir. 1901)
White v. United States (10th Cir. 1931)
Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Forsberg (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)
Law v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
Kingan & Co. v. Beall (D.C. 1914)
Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. City of Belleville (7th Cir. 1897)
Bowden v. Burnham (8th Cir. 1894)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Me. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This judgment is affirmed. The trial was by the court without a jury and there is no special finding of facts. The only questions presented by the bill of exceptions which we can consider are those which relate to the refusal of the court to allow certain interrogatories to be put to witnesses on the stand, and in these we find no error. The general finding prevents all inquiry by us into the special facts and conclusions of law on which that finding rests. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125; Cooper v. Omohundro, 19 Wall. 65, 69; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 670, 673.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.