FARMERS' LIFE INS. CO. OF DENVER, COLO., v. BARKER et al.

FARMERS’ LIFE INS. CO. OF DENVER, COLO., v. BARKER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. November 20, 1924.) No. 4275. 1. Appeal and error <®=>690(4), 1078(4)—As-signments of error in admission of evidence, not set out in accordance with court rule and not orally argued, will not be considered. Where substance of evidence, admission of which is complained of, is not stated as required by Circuit Court of Appeals rule 11, and where such matters are not orally argued, they will not be considered. 2. Appeal and error <@=<717—Assignments of error, complaining of findings of fact and of law, cannot be predicated on oral opinion, where specific findings not made. Assignments of error, complaining of findings of fact and of law, cannot be predicated on oral opinion stating court’s reasons, where no finding's either of fact or law are made. In Error- to the. District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; James Clifton Wilson, Judge. • Action by Bob Barker and Bob Pyron against the Farmers’ Life Insurance Company of Denver, Colo. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Henry A. Hicks, of Denver, Colo., and A. J. Bell, of San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff in error. Edwin T. Phillips and, David B. Trammell, both of Fort Worth, Tex., and A. S. Hardwieke, of Dallas, Tex. (Phillips, Trammell & Chizum, of Fort Worth, Tex., bn the brief), for defendants in-error. Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge. Rehearing denied January 31, 1925. [MAJORITY — BRYAN, Circuit Judge.] BRYAN, Circuit Judge. This case was tried before the District Judge, a jury being waived by stipulation in writing. Two of the assignments of error relate to the admission of testimony during the progress of the trial; but the substance of the evidence admitted is not stated as required by rule 11 of the rules of this court. Besides that, the brief for plaintiff in error does not appear to rely on these assignments, and they were not mentioned in the oral argument. Therefore they will not be considered. Radford Grocery Co. v. Haynie (C. C. A.) 261 F. 349. The remaining assignments of error complain of findings of fact and of law by the District Judge and of the judgment. The District Judge made no finding either of fact or of law, but at the close of the case merely delivered an oral opinion, stating the reasons which induced him to enter judgment for the defendant in error. The opinion does not take the place of findings of fact or law, and error cannot be assigned on the judgment. Bank of Waterproof v. Fidelity & Deposit. Co. (C. C. A.) 299 F. 478. The result is that the assignments of error which were argued and insisted on present no question for review. The judgment is affirmed.