Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
BOARDMAN v. TOFFEY, 1886 — 117 U.S. 271 · caselaw · US
General
BOARDMAN v. TOFFEY
117 U.S. 27129 L. Ed. 898·Supreme Court of the United States·1886
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BOARDMAN v. TOFFEY.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR ifHE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.
Argued March 11, 1886.
Decided March 15, 1886.
If the trial below is by the court without a jury, and the findings of facts are general, only such rulings of the court in the progress of the trial can be reviewed as are presented by a bill of exceptions.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
■ Mr. James B. Vredenburgh for plaintiff in error submitted on his brief.
Mr. Preston Stevenson for defendant in er-ror.
[MAJORITY — Me. Chief Justice "Waite]
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.