
    CITY OF COLORADO, TEX., v. HARRISON.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    December 13, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied February 1, 1916.)
    No. 2737.
    Appeal and Error <@=^>866, 1010 — Review—Motion bt Both Pasties foe Directed Yeedict.
    Where both parties asked the court to instruct a verdict, they necessarily requested the court to find the facts, and were concluded by its finding upon which the resulting instruction of law was given, and a reviewing court was limited to a consideration of the correctness of the finding on the law, and must affirm, if there Was any evidence in support thereof.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3467-3475, 3979-3982, 4024; Dec. Dig. <S=S66, 1010.]
    In Error to the District .Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Edward R. Meek, Judge.
    Action by Clarisse M. Harrison against the City of Colorado, Tex. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Royall G. Smith, of Colorado, Tex., for plaintiff in error.
    William D. Tatlow, of Springfield, Mo., for defendant in error.
    Before PARDEE and WARKER, Circuit Judges, and SPEER, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

“As * * * both parties asked the- court to instruct the verdict, both affirmed that there was no disputed question of fact which could operate to deflect or control the question of law. This was necessarily a request that the court find the facts, and the parties are, therefore, concluded by the finding made by the court, upon which the resulting instruction of law was given. The- facts having been thus submitted to the court, we are limited in reviewing its action to the consideration of the correctness of the finding on the law, and must affirm, if there be any evidence in support thereof.” Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, 157, 15 Sup. Ct. 566, 567 (39 L. Ed. 654); Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 598, 31 Sup. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff as shown in the bill of exceptions not only makes a prima facie case in his favor, but fully supports the finding of the court. See Presidio County v. Noel etc., 212 U. S. 58, 29 Sup. Ct. 237, 53 L. Ed. 402; Quinlan v. Green County, 205 U. S. 410, 419, 27 Sup. Ct. 505, 51 L. Ed 860; Provident Trust Co. v. Mercer County, 170 U. S. 593, 601, 18 Sup. Ct. 788, 42 L. Ed. 1156; City of Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U. S. 434, 16 Sup. Ct. 613. 40 L. Ed. 760; City of Lampasas v. Talcott, 94 Fed. 457, 36 C. C. A. 318; Young v. City of Colorado (Tex. Civ. App.) 174 S. W. 986.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.  