Hill v. Chicago Co
| Decision Date | 20 April 1891 |
| Citation | 11 S.Ct. 690,140 U.S. 52,35 L.Ed. 331 |
| Parties | HILL v. CHICAGO & E. R. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
M. D. Grover, for appellant.
John W. Cary and John N. Jewett, for appellees.
This is a suit in equity to compel a transfer to the complainant of certain shares of the capital stock of the Chicago & Evanston Railroad Company, and for other relief. It is brought against numerous defendants, who are alleged to be interested, more or less, in the several contracts and transactions out of which the claim of the complainant arises. Issue having been joined by the replication to the answer, evidence was taken, and upon the pleadings and proofs the case was brought to a hearing in May, 1885, before the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois. On the 8th of June following, a decree was made, by which among other things, it was ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed for want of equity as against certain of the defendants named, and that relief be denied to the complainant 'upon all matters and things in controversy' therein, except as to the amount of money paid by the defendant William C. Goudy for right of way in execution of a certain contract designated; and that for the purpose of ascertaining that amount the case be retained as to the other defendants, and be referred to a master in chancery to take additional testimony on that subject, and to report the amount paid; the court also declaring that on the making of the report such further decree would be rendered as might be equitable. The defendants against whom the case was thus retained were the Chicago & Evanston Railroad Company and its directors, constituting the only parties interested in the amount to be ascertained. From this decree the complainant prayed an appeal, which was allowed upon the filing of a specified bond, with sureties to be approved by the court. No such bond was given, nor was the appeal perfected, nor the record filed in this court at its next subsequent October term. In January, 1889, the appeal was, on motion, dismissed; this court following in that respect its repeated decisions that it has no jurisdiction of an appeal unless the transcript of the record is filed here at the next term after the appeal is taken. Hill v. Railroad Co., 129 U. S. 170, 174, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269. The master in chancery took testimony upon the subject of the amount paid by the defendant Goudy, as directed, and in January, 1887, made his report, which, on the 14th of July following, was confirmed, and the court thereupon ordered and decreed that the Chicago & Evanston Railroad Company forthwith pay to the complainant the sum of $6,513, with interest, and the costs of the reference and of the suit; and also that all other relief prayed by the complainant be denied as against that company, and that the bill be dismissed against the remaining ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Aron and Co., Inc. v. Service Transp. Co.
...see, e. g., United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U.S. 411, 46 S.Ct. 144, 70 L.Ed. 339 (1920); Hill v. Chicago & Evanston R.R. Co., 140 U.S. 52, 11 S.Ct. 690, 35 L.Ed. 331 (1891); Republic of China v. American Express Co., 190 F.2d 334, 335-36 (2d Cir. 1951), and the increasing complexity o......
-
Bendix Aviation Corp. v. Glass
...They are not relevant to the present argument. 7 Withenbury v. U. S., 1866, 5 Wall. 819, 18 L.Ed. 613; Hill v. Chicago & Evanston R. R. Co., 1891, 140 U.S. 52, 11 S. Ct. 690, 35 L.Ed. 331; United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co., 1926, 269 U.S. 411, 46 S.Ct. 144, 70 L.Ed. 339. Compare ......
-
Republic of China v. American Express Co.
...563, 565, 1 S.Ct. 512, 27 L.Ed. 276; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 689, 4 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 559; Hill v. Chicago & E. Railroad Company, 140 U.S. 52, 54, 11 S.Ct. 690, 35 L.Ed. 331; U. S. v. River Rouge Co., 269 U.S. 411, 413-414, 46 S.Ct. 144, 70 L.Ed. 339; Clark v. Williard, 292 U.S.......
-
Vincent v. Plecker
...determinative of the separable controversy between him and the plaintiff, and is appealable as such.4Hill v. Chicago & Evanston Railroad, 140 U.S. 52, 11 S.Ct. 690, 35 L.Ed. 331;Reeves v. Beardall, 316 U.S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478;Curtis v. Connly, 3 Cir., 264 F. 650, affirmed 257......