
    ROACH v. MINSHALL et al.
    No. 6746.
    Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Jan. 15, 1936.
    Harold S. Rausch and Edward Blythin, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
    Thomas C. Terrett and William E. Min-shall, both of Qeveland, Ohio, for appellees.
    Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

It appearing to the court upon a consideration of this case that a jury was waived and' the cause tried to the court, that there was only a general finding and judgment in favor of appellees, that there was no request for any special findings of fact, and of course no exception for a failure to find specific facts, that there was no proposition of law presented to the court by motion for judgment with request for a ruling thereon, and that there is therefore no reviewable question presented in the record [see Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States, 270 U.S. 349, 356, 46 S.Ct. 284, 70 L.Ed. 624; Lewellyn, Collector, v. Electric Reduction Co., 275 U.S. 243, 248, 48 S.Ct. 63, 72 L.Ed. 262; Law v. United States, 266 U.S. 494, 45 S.Ct. 175, 69 L.Ed. 401; Ocean Acc. & Guarantee Corp. v. Pearson, 37 F.(2d) 896 (C.C.A. 6); Fordson Coal Co. v. Wilson, 39 F.(2d) 55 (C.C.A. 6); May v. Marbury, 39 F.(2d) 438 (C.C.A. 6); Wynne v. Fries, 50 F.(2d) 761 (C.C.A. 6); Brown v. Harvey Coal Corp., 61 F.(2d) 624 (C.C.A. 6) ; Rose v. United States, 69 F.(2d) 966 (C.C.A. 6); Humphreys v. Third National Bank, 75 F. 852, 855 (C.C.A. 6)],

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be, and the same is, affirmed.

Judgment of District Court affirmed.  