British Queen Mining Co. v. Baker Silver Mining Co.
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Shingle (9th Cir. 1937)
- Thompson-Starrett Co. v. La Belle Iron Works (2d Cir. 1927)
- Merriam v. Huselton (8th Cir. 1930)
- Babbitt Bros. Trading v. New Home Sewing Mach. Co. (9th Cir. 1932)
- Larsen v. Martin (Or. 1943)
- Nevins v. United States (7th Cir. 1938)
- Continental Nat. Bank v. National City Bank of New York (9th Cir. 1934)
- Fred W. Mears Heel Co. v. Walley (1st Cir. 1934)
- First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corp. of New York (9th Cir. 1931)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Board of Education of District of Beaver Pond (4th Cir. 1926)
- Schoenwald v. Bishop (9th Cir. 1917)
- Hartford Fire Ins. v. War Eagle Coal Co. (4th Cir. 1924)
- Java Cocoanut Oil Co. v. Pajaro Valley Nat. Bank (9th Cir. 1924)
- Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (5th Cir. 1924)
- T. H. Flood & Co. v. Bates (7th Cir. 1922)
- W. L. Perkins & Co. v. Von Raumbach (8th Cir. 1911)
- Fellman v. Royal Ins. (5th Cir. 1911)
- United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (8th Cir. 1909)
- United States v. Cleage (8th Cir. 1908)
- Pacific Sheet Metal Works v. Californian Canneries Co. (9th Cir. 1908)
- National Surety Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (6th Cir. 1906)
- Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard (8th Cir. 1904)
- Streeter v. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago (7th Cir. 1904)
- Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. State ex rel. Ketcham (Ind. 1902)
- McCaughn v. Real Estate Land Title & Trust Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)
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
BRITISH QUEEN MINING COMPANY
v.
BAKER SILVER MINING COMPANY.
Supreme Court of United States.
Mr. James B. Reilly for plaintiff in error.
Mr. A.H. Wintersteen and Mr. Wayne McVeagh filed a brief for defendant in error. Mr. E.T. Wells, Mr. R.T. McNeal and Mr. John G. Taylor also filed a brief for same.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was tried by the Circuit Court, without a jury, and under §§ 649 and 700, Rev. Stat., the finding must be "either general or special." It cannot be both. Here there was a general finding.
The record contains a bill of exceptions, but no exceptions to the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial of the cause were thereby duly presented, and although after reciting the evidence it is therein stated that "the court thereafter and during the said term made the following findings of fact and judgment thereon," which is followed by an opinion of the court assigning reasons for its conclusions, this cannot be treated as a special finding enabling us to determine whether the facts found support the judgment, nor can the general finding be disregarded. Dickinson v. Planters' Bank, 16 Wall. 250; Ins. Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237; Norris v. Jackson, 9 *223 Wall. 125; Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425; Ins. Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44; Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285; Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 158; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U.S. 670; Raimond v. Terrebonne Parish, 132 U.S. 192; Glenn v. Fant, 134 U.S. 398; Lloyd v. McWilliams, 137 U.S. 576.
The record raises no questions open to revision by us and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.