Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/386

572 FEDERAL REPORTER. �district courts, or in regard to a review of the rulings of the court in the progress of such trials, as are found in section 649 and section 700, in respect to circuit courts. It is true that in the district court, in a suit otherss^ise triable by a jury, the parties may, by stipulation, waive a jury and agree on a statement of facts, and submit the case to the court thereon for its decision as to the law therein. Hender- soji's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 44, 53. This they may do in the «ircuit court also, without any statute to that effect. Campbell v, Bayreau, 21 How. 223, 226. But this is not the finding of issues of fact by the court upon the evidence. The provisions of section 649 and section 700 relate wholly to such finding, and not at all to the action of the court on an agreed statement of facts ; and the same is true of section 566. An appellate court can, under a general authority given to it to review, on a writ of error, the judgment of an inferior court, review the conclusions of law of that court made on an agreed statement of facts submitted to that court. Campbell v. Bayreau, ut supra. But, in the absence of any special statutory power conferred upon it to do so, this court cannot, under such authority as is given to it by section 633 of the Revised Statutes, consider any of the mat- ters raised by the bill of exceptions in this case. The authority given to this court by section 633 is merely to re-examine the final judgments of the district court in civil actions. It is the same au- thority which was given to the supreme court in respect to judgments of the circuit court before the act of March 3, 1865, was passed. The estent of that authority is well settled. �In Campbell v. Bayreau, ut supra, in 1858, which was a suit at law in a circuit court, the whole case was, upon the trial, submitted to the court, a jury being expressly waived by agreement of parties. Evidence was offered on both sides. The court decided the facts, and then decided the questions of law ariaing on the facts so found, and gave judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant sued out a writ of error fron the supreme court. There were in the record bills of exceptions which showed exceptions by the defendants to the admissi- bility of evidence, and exceptions to the construction and legal effect which the court f^ave to certain instruments in writing. But the supreme court held that, in the mode of proceeding which the parties had seen proper to adopt, none of the questions, whether of fact or of law, decided by the court below could be re-examined by the supreme ■court on a writ of error. The court cites, to that effect, Guild v. Fron- fin, 18 How. 135 ; Suydam v. Williamson, 20 How. 432 ; Kelsey v. For- •-yih, 21 How. 85. It says: ��� �