FINDIN G. The result of the deliberations of a jury or a court. Todd v. Potter, 1 Day (Conn.) 238 ; Denslow v. Moore, 2 Day (Conn.) 12 ; U. S. v. Moller, 16 Blatchf. 65, Fed. Cas. No. 15,794.
The word find or finding does not always imply the same thing in legal proceedings. Where a cause is tried by the court, the find ing means the fact which the court considers the evidence establishes, but find, as used in a Statute in respect to the troth of a com plaint for the revocation of a license, im plies that the board is satisfied from the evidence, and the conclusion may be inform ally expressed. State v. Beloit, 74 Wis. 267, 42 N. W. 110.
Under the Act of March 3, 1865, R. S. § 649, it was provided that issues of fact in civil cases might be tried and determined by the court without the intervention of a jury upon the filing by the parties of a stipula tion in writing waiving a jury, and that the finding of the court upon the facts might be either general or special and should have the same effect as the verdict of the jury; .1 Comp. Stat (1901) 525. This provision seems to be undisturbed by the enactment of the judicial code, and it is omitted from the list of sections of the Revised Statutes repealed by it. The supreme court, in construing the statute above cited, lays down the following principles with respect to findings as being settled (citing a number of cases to each proposition): "1. The facts found by the court below are conclusive ; that the bill of exceptions cannot be used to bring up the ev idence for a review of these findings ; that the only rulings, upon which we are al- thor ized to pass, are such as might be presented by a bill of exceptions prepared as in actions at law ; and that the findings have practical ly the same effect as the special verdict of a jury. 2. That it is only the ultimate facts which the court is bound to find; and that this court will not take notice of a refusal to find the mere incidental facts, which only amount to evidence from which the ultimate fact is to be obtained. 3. If the court below
neglects or refuses to make a finding one way or the other, as to the existence of a mate rial fact, which has been established by un contradicted evidence, or if it finds such a fact when not supported by any evidence whatever, and an exception be taken, the question may be brought up for 'review in that particular. In the one case, the refusal to find would be equivalent to finding that the fact was immaterial ; and, in the other, that there was some evidence to prove what is found, when in truth there was none. Both of these are questions of law, and proper subjects for review in an appellate court." The City of New York, 147 U. S. 76, 13 Sup. Ct. 211, 37 L. Ed. 84.
As to the findings of a master, see MASTER IN CHANCERY.
Where a case is tried by a court without a jury, its findings upon questions of fact are conclusive, in the United States supreme court ; Stanley v. Albany County, 121 U. S. 535, 7 Sup. Ct. 1234, 30 L. Ed. 1000 ; Allen v. Bank, 120 U. S. 20, 7 Sup. Ct. 460, 30 L. Ed. 373. Errors in the findings of fact by the court are not subject to revision if there is any evidence upon which such findings could be made ; Hathaway v. Bank, 134 U. S. 494, 10 Sup. Ct. 608, 33 L. Ed. 1004.
A finding without evidence is arbitrary and useless, and an act of congress authorizing any body to make such finding would be in consistent with justice, and an exercise of arbitrary power ; Interstate Commerce Com mission v. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 33 Sup. Ct. 185, 57 L. Ed.