
    Empire Transportation Company v. W. S. Blanchard.
    The opinion of the court, in deciding a ease in which the facts and law are stated generally, can not, by hill of exceptions, be made a substitute for the statement of “the conclusions of facts found, separately from the conclusions of law,” as required by section 280 of the code.
    Motion for leave to file petition in error to the District Court of Cuyahoga county.
    The action in the court of common pleas was brought by Blanchard against the Transportation Company, as a common carrier, to recover the value of certain coal-oil, delivered to it at Cleveland, to be carried to Scranton, Pennsylvania, and there to be delivered to Blanchard, the owner and consignee. The oil was destroyed by fire, while in the hands of the Transportation Company, or its agent. The pleadings made issues for trial that need not be stated.
    A bill of exceptions was taken, and made part of the record, which shows that the parties respectively offered testimony tending to maintain the issues on their respective parts.
    “ Thereupon the defendant requested the court to find the various facts set forth in the answer, and to adjudge and hold, as questions of law arising therefrom, that— •
    “ First. The said plaintiff was bound to take out insurance, as provided for in the sixth clause of the bill of lading, attached to the answer; and, upon his failure to do so, the defendant was not bound to reimburse him for loss arising from fire.
    “ Second. That if plaintiff failed to fulfill any of the conditions of said bill of lading, he could not recover in this action.
    “ Thereupon the court, being fully advised in the premises, do find the facts and the conclusions of law, as set forth in the decision marked ‘ Exhibit B,’ and made part of this bill of exceptions. To which finding and judgment of the court the defendant then and there excepted,” etc.
    Exhibit B, above referred to, is a lengthy opinion of the court, delivered on the final disposition of the whole case, in which the issues are stated, the testimony commented on, the law referred to, and the conclusion of the court announced ; but it does not appear that it was the intention of the court to “ state the conclusion of facts found, separately from the conclusions of law,” nor is there any such statement made.
    Judgment being rendered for the plaintiff below, the defendant moved to set the same aside, and for a new trial, on the following grounds:
    “ First. That the finding of said court is against the evidence.
    “ Second. That the finding and judgment of the court is contrary to the law and evidence in such case.
    
      “ Third. That the judgment was given for the plaintiff, when it ought to have been given for the defendant.”
    The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
    The district court having affirmed the judgment, the plaintiff in error now asks the reversal of both judgments.
    
      J. E. Ingersoll, for the motion.
    
      J. E. Estep and S. Burke, contra.
   By the Court.

The decision referred to in the bill of exceptions as “ Exhibit B,” is a lengthy opinion of the court, in deciding the case generally in favor of the plaintiff, in which there is no statement of “ the conclusions of fact found, separately from the conclusions of law,” within the meaning of section 280 of the code; and the making of such opinion a part of the record, by a bill of exceptions, is not a compliance with the section named, and can not be treated as a substitute for the separate findings and statement required by it. -

Motion overruled.  