the competency or effect of evidence, or any rulings of the court below upon evidence, to be examined, the court cannot entertain the case as an agreed statement. Burr v. The Des Moines Co. (ante, p. 99) affirmed. Pomeroy v. State Bank, 1 Wall. 592.

24. (Dec., 1866.) Under the practice prevailing in the Circuit Courts of the United States, the finding of the facts by the court makes a case in the nature of a special verdict, and is conclusive as to those facts; and this, although the petition sets forth a different state of facts, which are neither confessed nor denied by the answer. Saulet v. Shepherd, 4

Wall. 502.

25. (Dec., 1867.) Where a paper in the form of a special verdict, except that after stating the facts it did not refer the decision on them to the court, in the conditional and alternative way usual in such verdicts, but found "a general verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the foregoing recited facts," was "agreed to as a special verdict," by counsel in the cause, filed of record and passed on as an agreed case by the court below, this court, remarking that, as a special verdict, the paper was defective, because not ending with the usual conclusion, in view of the facts just mentioned, considered it as a special verdict or agreed case; and, on error to a judgment given on it below, adjudged the case presented by it. Mumford v. Wardwell, 6 Wall. 423.

26. (Dec., 1868.) The act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. at Large, 501), which provides by its fourth section a mode by which parties who submit cases to the court, without the intervention of a jury, may have the rulings of the court reviewed here, and also what may be reviewed in such cases, binds the federal courts sitting in Louisiana as elsewhere, and this court cannot disregard it. Insurance Co. v. Tweed, 7 Wall. 44.

27. However, in a case where the counsel for both parties in this court had agreed to certain parts of the opinion of the

court below, as containing the material facts of the case, and to treat them here as facts found by that court, this court acted upon the agreement here, as if it had been made in the court below.

Ib.

28. (Dec., 1868.) A judgment affirmed in a case where the only ruling of the court to be found in the record was a judgment rendered in favor of a plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of money; where there was no question raised in the pleadings, no bill of exceptions, and no instructions or ruling of the court; and where what purported to be a statement of facts, signed by the judge, was filed more than two months after the writ of error was allowed and filed in the court, and nearly a month after the citation was issued. Generes v. Bonnemer, 7 Wall. 564.

29. (Dec., 1869.) A statement of facts, made and filed by the judge several days after the issue and service of the writ of error, in a case, is a nullity. Generes v. Bonnemer (7 Wall. 564) affirmed. Avendano v. Gay, 8 Wall. 376.

30. (Dec., 1869.) Where a court, sitting in place of a jury, finds the facts, this court cannot review that finding. Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38.

31. (Dec., 1869.) The fourth section of the act of March 3, 1865, establishes the mode in which parties may submit cases to the court without a jury, and the manner in which a review of the law of such cases may be had in this court. Norris v. Jackson, 9 Wall. 125.

32. The special finding of the facts mentioned in that statute is not a mere report of the evidence, but a finding of those ultimate facts on which the law must determine the rights of the parties. Ib.

33. If the finding of facts be general, only such rulings of the court, in the progress of the trial, can be reversed as are presented by a bill of exceptions. Ib.

34. In such cases a bill of exceptions cannot be used to

bring up the whole testimony for review, any more than in a trial by jury. Ib.

35. Objections to the admission or rejection of evidence, or to such rulings or propositions of law as may be submitted to the court, must be shown by bill of exceptions. Ib.

36. If the parties desire a review of the law of the case, they must ask the court to make a special finding which raises the question, or get the court to rule on the legal propositions which they present.

Ib.

37. (Dec., 1869.) The court expresses itself as disposed to hold parties who, under the act of March 3, 1865, waive a trial by jury and substitute the court for the jury, to a reasonably strict conformity to the regulations of the act, if they desire to save to themselves all the rights and privileges which belong to them in trials by jury at the common law. Flanders v. Tweed, 9 Wall. 425.

38. Accordingly, in a case where there was no stipulation filed for the waiver of a jury, and where the judge had filed his "statement of facts" three months after the date of the judgment rendered, which statement, so irregularly filed, the court regarded as a nullity, and no question of law was to be considered as properly raised on the pleading, the court stated that, according to the general course of proceeding in former like cases, the judgment below should be affirmed. Ib.

39. However, in this case,-one from Louisiana,- it being apparent that both parties supposed that a case had been made up according to the practice of that state, but one not having been made up by the court nor properly filed according to the requirements of the statute, so that, from that cause, the case, which it was meant by both court and parties to get here, could not be properly passed upon, the judgment, under the circumstances (the case being an important one), was not affirmed, but was reversed for mistrial, and remanded for a new trial. Ib.

40. (Dec., 1869.) When a court below makes a special

finding, this court will not go into an examination of the evidence on which it was founded to ascertain whether or not it was right. The finding is equivalent to a special verdict. Copelin v. Insurance Co., 9 Wall. 462.

41. (Dec., 1869.) A judgment affirmed where there was no finding of facts in the case. Reilly v. Golding, 10 Wall. 56.

42. (Dec., 1870.) Norris v. Jackson (9 Wall. 125) and Flanders v. Tweed (ib. 425) affirmed ; and it is again decided that, under the act of March 3, 1865, authorizing parties to submit the issues of fact in civil cases, to be tried and determined by the court, this court will not review a general finding upon a mass of evidence brought up; and that if a party desires to have the finding reviewed he must have the court find the facts specially, so that the case may come here as on a special verdict or case stated. Coddington v. Richardson, 10 Wall. 516.

43. (Dec., 1870.) The act of 3d March, 1865, providing for a trial without a jury, and a review by this court of the facts found by the judge, either generally or specially, by a sufficient bill of exceptions, is general in its terms, and embraces the State of Louisiana. Generes v. Campbell, 11 Wall.

193.

44. (Dec., 1870.) Prior to the act of March 3, 1865, parties to an action at law could submit the issues of fact to be tried by the court without a jury; but they were bound by the judgment of the court, and could not have a review on error of any ruling of the court on such trial. Kearney v. Case, 12 Wall. 275.

45. To enable parties to have such a review, and to enable them to make a valid agreement to waive a jury, the act above mentioned was passed, which, for that purpose, required the waiver to be in writing and filed with the clerk. Ib.

46. There can, under this act, be no review of the ruling

of the court in such cases, unless the record shows that such an agreement was signed and filed with the clerk. Ib.

47. But the existence of such a writing may be shown in this court: first, by a copy of the agreement; or, second, by a statement in the finding of facts by the court, that it was executed; or, third, by such statement in the record entry of the judgment; or, fourth, by such statement in the bill of exceptions. Ib.

48. Unless it appears that such an agreement was filed, the judgment must be affirmed, unless error appear in other parts of the record than the finding of facts and judgment of the court thereon. Ib.

49. A paper, found in the record, purporting to be a statement of facts agreed to by the parties, and filed with the clerk after the writ of error is issued, or after the case is disposed of by the Circuit Court, cannot be noticed here, on writ of error, though both parties consent. Ib.

50. (Dec., 1870.) The rules laid down in Norris v. Jackson (9 Wall. 125), and in Flanders v. Tweed (ib. 425), and in the preceding case of Kearney v. case of Kearney v. Case (supra, 275), as to the mode of finding the facts by the court (waiving a jury), under the act of March 3, 1865 (relative to the trial of issues of fact in civil causes), and as to the effect to be given to such finding, and the manner in which the record is to be prepared for this, and the extent of the inquiry to be made in this court, again set forth in detail. Miller v. Life Ins. Co., 12 Wall. 285.

51. Under that act, when, on a suit on a policy of insurance, the question was whether a waiver of a payment in cash of the premium had or had not been made, held, in a case where the court found on the evidence, as a fact, that it had been waived; that the correctness or incorrectness of a series of requests, which were founded on an assumption that it had not been, were not subject to review here under the act. Ib. 52. (Dec., 1871.) Under the act of March 3, 1865, authorizing the trial of facts by Circuit Courts, the court must