James v. Central Trust Co. of New York

Citation108 F. 929
Decision Date07 May 1901
Docket Number358.
PartiesJAMES et al. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Chas Price, for petitioners.

A. C Avery, for respondents.

Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and BRAWLEY, District Judge.

GOFF Circuit Judge.

At the November term, 1899, of this court the case of Clemye James administratrix of W. A. James and others, appellants, against the Central Trust Company of New York and Southern Railway Company, appellees, an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of North Carolina was disposed of. 98 F. 489, 39 C.C.A. 126. Said cause was remanded, with directions to modify the decree appealed from so as to cause it to conform to the opinion of this court then filed. In due time the mandate of this court issued to the court below, in the following words:

'It is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said circuit court in this case be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs, so far as it grants the injunction enjoining the further prosecution of the bill which was filed; but the said cause is remanded to the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of North Carolina, at Charlotte, with directions to modify the said decree in accordance with the opinion of this court.'

At the December term, 1899, of the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of North Carolina, at Charlotte, a proposed decree was presented to said court (Hon. H. G. Ewart, district judge, presiding) by counsel for the appellees in said cause, the object of which was to secure the modification of the decree referred to in the manner directed by the opinion and mandate of this court. The said circuit court declined to enter said decree, and adjourned without having made the modification required by the mandate of this court. Whereupon application was made to this court, by petition in due form, for a mandamus requiring the said court to enter the decree referred to, and an order nisi was entered and served, to which answer has been made from which it appears that on the 23d day of April, 1900, a decree was entered in said cause by said judge, which he insists and which counsel for respondents now claim is in full harmony with the opinion of this court, and in entire conformity to its mandate. The insistence is still made by counsel for petitioners that the court below has mistaken the opinion of this court, and misconstrued its mandate; that there was nothing left open for decision by the court below; and that it was simply directed to enjoin forever the further prosecution of the suit that had been instituted in the state court, and that there are matters adjudicated by said decree that should not have been determined by said circuit court, as they were not included in the directions of the mandate.

A careful examination of the opinion, decree, and mandate of this court, in connection with the decree of the court below leads us to the conclusion that the modification made by Judge Ewart is in fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT