In an appellate court it is the general rule that findings of fact in the trial court are conclusive ; E. Bement & Son v. Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 22 Sup. Ct. 747, 46 L. Ed. 1058 ; American Bridge Co. v. R. Co., 135 Fed. 323, 68 C. C. A. 131; Smith v. City of Buffalo, 159 N. Y. 427, 54 N. E. 62 ; Fitch burg R. Co. v. Freeman, 12 Gray (Mass.) 401, 74 Am. Dec. 600 ; Hoffman v. Silverthorn, 137 Mich. 60, 100 N. W. 183 ; Jersey City v. Tallman, 60 N. J. L. 239, 37 Atl. 1026; Ap peal of Melony, 78 Conn. 334, 62 Atl. 151; and when the case is tried by the court, with out a jury, the findings of the trial judge are as conclusive as the verdict of a jury; York v. Washburn, 129 Fed. 564, 64 C. C. A. 132; Bell v. Wood, 87 Ky. 56, '7 S. W. 550; Rademacher v. Greenwood, 114 III. App. 542; Rauen v. Ins. Co., 129 Ia. 725, 106 N. W. 198; but when the appellate court is convinced that the premise upon which the lower court acted is without any support in the evidence, and that its finding is clearly erroneous, It may be disregarded ; Darlington v. Turner, 202 U. S. 195, 26 Sup. Ct. 630, 50 L. Ed. 992; U. S. v. Puleston, 106 Fed. 294, 45 C. C. A. 297; Petition of Barr, 188 Pa. 122, 41 Atl. 303; Brown v. Brown, 174 Mass. 197, 54 N. E. 532, 75 Am. St. Rep. 292 ; Idenz v. Beebe, 102 Wis. 342, 77 N. W. 913, 78 N. W. 601.
Cross appeals in equity must be prosecuted like other appeals ; Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 609, 10 Sup. Ct. 771, 34 L. Ed. 246. Where defendant appeals from part of the decree, which is affirmed, and the plaintiff thereafter appeals from the other part of the decree, a motion to dismiss will be de nied ; State v. R. Co., 99 Minn. 280, 109 N. W. 238, 110 N. W. 975.
A federal appellate court in reversing a judgment for the plaintiff cannot direct a judgment for defendant, notwithstanding a verdict for the plaintiff, since under the VIIth Amendment of the Constitution the only course is to order a new trial, and this is true notwithstanding the state statute and practice authorizes such action ; Slocum v. Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, 33 Sup. Ct. 523, 57 L. Ed. -; Pederson v. R. Co., 229 U. S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. -; but this amendment is not applicable to the state courts; Slocum v. Ins. Co., 228 U. S. 364, 33 Sup. Ct. 523, 57 L. Ed. -; and the reversal of a cause upon the facts and rendition of final judgment by the appellate court is erally held not to be an infringement of the right of trial by jury secured by the state constitutions ; Borg v. R. Co., 162 Ill. 348, 44 N. E. 722 ; Gunn v. R. Co., 27 R. I. 320, 62 Atl. 118, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 362 ; id., 27 R. 1. 432, 63 Atl. 239, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 883 ; nor is the constitutional guaranty infringed by a statute authorizing the appellate court to make findings of facts "which shall be final and conclusive as to all matters of fact in controversy in such cause" ; Larkins v. R. Ass'n, 221 Ill. 428, 77 N. E. 678 ; nor does it
imply that a verdict on an issue of fact is beyond the controlling power of the trial or appellate court, to be exercised to prevent in justice ; Chitty v. Ry. Co., 148 Mo. 64, 49 S. W. 868; nor does a statute authorizing the appellate court to reverse for excessive dam ages; Smith v. Pub. Co., 178 Pa. 481, 36 Atl. 296, 35 L. R. A. 819 ; nor an act authorizing such court to affirm, reverse, amend or modi fy a judgment without returning the record to the court below ; or to order a verdict and judgment to be set aside and a new trial had; Nugent v. Traction Co., 183 Pa. 142, 38 Atl. 587; where the damages are excessive the appellate court may require the plaintiff to remit the excess as a condition of affirm ance without depriving either party of his right to trial by jury ; Burdict v. Ry. 123 Mo. 221, 27 S. W. 453, 26 L. R. A. 384, 45 Am. St. Rep. 528; Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Syfan, 91 Tex. 562, 44 S. W. 1064 ; but where the jury finds the charge of negligence not sustained by the facts, the court cannot disturb the verdict, though it be of a differ ent opinion ; Gibson v. City of Huntington, 38 W. Va. 177, 18 S. E. 447, 22 L. R. A. 561, 45 Am. St. Rep. 853.
Harmless error is no cause for reversal ; Townsend v. Bell, 167 N. Y. 462, 60 N. E. 757; Springer v. Lipsis, 209 Ill. 264, 70 N. E. 641; O'Donnell v. Ins. Co., 73 Mich. 1, 41 N. W. 95 ; nor intermediate error where the ul timate judgment is right; Orr v. Leathers, 27 Ind. App. 572, 61 N. E. 941; Inhabitants of Winslow v. Troy, 97 Me. 130, 53 Atl. 1008; nor, when the losing party is not entitled to recover in any event, can he be heard to complain of error at the trial; Wood v. Wyeth, 106 App. Div. 21, 94 N. Y. Supp. 360 ; nor where, if the error did not prejudice the party against whom it was committed ; Ar mour & Co. v. Russell, 144 Fed. 614, 75 C. C. A. 416, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 602; Strever v. Ry. Co., 106 Ia. 137, 76 N. W. 513.
Judgments will be reversed where the court below erred in failing to sustain, a de murrer to one of several paragraphs of the declaration or complaint, and it cannot be determined on which paragraph or count the verdict was based; Gendron v. St. Pierre, 72 N. H. 400, 56 Atl. 915; Bohler v. Hicks, 120 Ga. 800, 48 S. E. 306; or where evidence was improperly admitted, prejudice being presumed ; National Biscuit Co. v. Nolan, 138 Fed. 6, 70 C. C. A. 436; Inhabitants of Way land v. Inhabitants of Ware, 109 Mass. 248; or on the exclusion of evidence, the same presumption applying; Westall v. Osborne, 115 Fed. 282, 53 C. C. A. 74; Hanlon v. Ehrich, 178 N. Y. 474, 71 N. E. 12 ; so also an erroneous instruction on a material point (unless it clearly appears to have been harmless) ; Podhaisky v. City of Cedar Rap ids, 106 Ia. 543, 76 N. W. 847 ; Ward v. Ward, 47 W. Va. 766, 35 S. E. 873; Neal v. Brandon, 70 Ark. 79, 66 S. W. 200.