Adams v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co.

Decision Date28 November 1898
Citation77 Miss. 194,24 So. 317
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesWIRT ADAMS, STATE REVENUE AGENT, v. YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY AND YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. WIRT ADAMS, STATE REVENUE AGENT
March 1899

The brief of Messrs. Mayes & Harris, in support of the motion cannot be found by the reporter after diligent search.

Critz &amp Beckett, contra.

We do not think this motion is germane to this case, or that this court has any jurisdiction to entertain such a motion. This case, No. 8629, as a case, was decided on June 20, 1898. It was then reversed and remanded, and this court adjourned for the term on July 1, 1898, and thenceforward lost all jurisdiction of this case.

It was the judgment of this court reversing and remanding the cause which reinvested the lower court with jurisdiction to proceed, and the mandate was at most simply an official notification. Foster v. Jordan, 54 Miss. 510.

We think the court or the judges have a right to correct their opinions at any time. It is a mere matter of taste and accuracy; and even if new grounds are added, they cannot prejudice either party in that case, for the simple reason that the judgment remains the same, and that is all that the litigants are concerned with or have a right to demand or require. If any objection can be made, it is not in that case, but in some other case in which the new decision or finding is attempted to be used, when it might be claimed that it could not be used as res adjudicata, because the party has not been heard on it, and has not had his day in court.

There is a second appeal pending in this litigation, but not in this case, and when that appeal comes on to be heard, then it will be in order to claim that any new ground in the opinion in this case, inserted after the trial in the lower court, shall not be used on that appeal, except as an original proposition, and on its merits, as applicable to the second appeal, and not by virtue of the fact that it appears in the corrected opinion. If it is a new ground, the defendants may have a right to be heard on it, as if it had not been passed on, but we fail to see the propriety of starting up a fresh litigation with the court about the language in which its opinion is expressed, when its decision, one way or the other, could not have the least effect on the case decided.

We think an amicus curiae, or any outsider, would have as much legal interest in the result of such a motion, and as much right to make it, as the defendants.

J. A. P. Campbell, contra.

This motion is without precedent or merit, and is a direct attack on the right of the judges and on the power and dignity of the court. No law prescribes When an opinion shall be delivered. The only provision is that, in certain cases, the opinion shall be in writing, stating the reasons upon which the decision is made. All else is left to the court. Another and distinct provision is that a copy of the opinion, in cases remanded, shall be certified to the court below. The sole purpose of this is to inform the lower court of the ground on which its judgment or decree was set aside, and to make the test of the opinion a part of the taxable costs of the case, but for which information of the reason for reversal would have to be ascertained by other means. These are mere matters of practice, in no way affecting jurisdiction or the validity of proceedings or judgments. Were the supreme court to reverse and remand without giving an opinion in writing, or with a mere statement that the judgment or decree was found to be erroneous, the validity of the reversal and consequent proceedings would be unquestionable. Were the court below to proceed with a case remanded, in which the most elaborate opinion was written, without having a copy of the opinion, no objection could be sustained for that. The matter of opinions must, from necessity, be left to the discretion and control of the court as mere matter of practice, the statutes directing certain things, but not making validity to depend on their being done. Usually the opinion precedes and directs the decision, but the validity of the decision does not depend on the opinion. The opinion might be ever so erroneous and indefensible, but that would not affect the validity of the decision. They are quite independent of each other as to this. It is not uncommon to enter the decision, and deliver the opinion afterwards at leisure, and no law prohibits this or is contravened by it. It is within the control of the court, and hitherto unquestioned.

The motion does not accurately state the case. There was an opinion in writing stating the reasons for the decision, before it was made, and this opinion stated "there are other views leading to the same conclusion which we may embrace in the opinion yet to be filed." Thus the law requiring an opinion was complied with, and, with the several reasons given in it, there was notice of more to follow in a more elaborate opinion thereafter given.

The complaint is that the after opinion "announces decisions on points of law alleged to be controlling in this case additional to and different from any decision announced in the abstract (summary) of June 26, 1898, and certified to the court below with the mandate as the opinion of this court." If this be true, it affords no ground for complaint. A comparison of the opinion (summary) which preceded the decision and the more elaborate opinion subsequently delivered, will show that the latter is but an amplification of the views of the judges in sustaining their conclusions formulated in the former, only an extension of the argument, with some additional views reinforcing it. The summary held that "because of the inconsistent compromise verdict, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded on the appeal and cross appeal."

2. Disposed of the claim of res adjudicata.

3. Held that there was consolidation by the companies, and a loss of exemption from taxes, by virtue of sec. 180 of the constitution of 1890.

4. That sec. 21 of the Mobile & Northwestern Railroad Company charter, relied on, was in violation of the constitution of 1869, and therefore void.

5. That Mississippi Mills v. Cook and the Lambert case were unsound and overruled.

There is little else in the latter opinion, which reaffirms the above propositions, and whatever added reasons may be in it are surely covered by the announcement of the "other views" indicated by the summary as probably forthcoming.

Apart from the undoubted right of the court to deliver its views when and in what form it pleases, what harm has been done, and what right has a litigant to complain? What can be gained were the motion sustained? The object in making it is transparent, but it is not perceived how the mover would be advantaged by its being sustained. The summary or first opinion is quite sufficient. It shows sufficient reasons for the decision, and that consolidation caused loss of exemption by sec. 180 of the constitution of 1890. This is strictly a question for this court to decide finally, and with which the supreme court of the United States can have nothing to do. This is a distinct and independent ground of the decision, supporting it and placing it beyond federal interference; and if all else was stricken from the summary, and if the latter opinion was withdrawn, or this motion sustained, the decision would be unassailable. Can it be that the mover hopes to keep the elaborated opinion from being considered by the supreme court of the United States? The effort made by this motion will insure its consideration by that court, if the case shall ever get before it. It is apparent that the object is to inject into the case a federal question, as is shown by the second ground of the motion, which is that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States was violated by what occurred. How, is not discoverable. Wherein the trial of the remanded cause by the circuit court, and rendition of judgment against the appellants without the benefit of the full opinion recently given, was "without due process of law, " is a profound mystery. The summary cut the defense up by the roots, and that there were other reasons for the decision was immaterial. One is enough, and addition made no difference. If there had been no opinion by this court, and the circuit court, groping in the dark, had ruled in accordance with the views of this court, all would have been well, and the judgment would have been unaffected by that.

The law requiring opinions in writing is simply advisory. It is not obligatory. Houston v. Williams, 13 Cal. 27, announces the true view, and fully vindicates the action of this court in this case. I cannot add anything to its vigorous presentation, and rest the resistance of the motion on it.

A new definition of "due process of law" will have to be framed to warrant the granting of this motion.

OPINION

WHITEFIELD, J.

Sec 4352 and § 4381 of the code of 1892 were fully complied with by the summary of holdings handed down in June last, certified to and used in the circuit court on the trial of the case after it was remanded. Every reason for decision contained in that summary is also set out in the opinion filed recently, insisted on, and enforced. 24 Smith. 200. The court has receded from no Position in that summary announced. it has added one new reason, and one only, for the decision: That the exemption was repealed by legislation, to wit, the act of 1886, and the provisions of the code of 1892. With this single exception, the reasons given for the decision in the summary are identical with the reasons given in the opinion now on file; and it is too plain for argument that, had the new reason for decision now set out...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Franklin v. Ellis
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1922
    ... ... v. ELLIS et al No. 22880 Supreme Court of Mississippi November 6, 1922 ... 1 ... LEVEES AND FLOOD ... of levee commissioners of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta levee ... district, that it is ... cases, 12 Wall. 457; Adams v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 77 Miss ... It ... & Eng. Enc. of Law, 366; New Orleans, etc., ... Railroad Co. v. State, 70 So. 355, 110 Miss. 290; ... Brown v ... ...
  • State ex rel. Moore v. Molpus
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1991
    ...interpretation, although not so strongly as in private litigation, it is commonly thought. Adams v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, 77 Miss. 194, 308, 24 So. 317, 319 (1898); see also, Glidden Company v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 543, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 1469, 8 L.Ed.2d 671, 683 (1962);......
  • Power v. Robertson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1922
    ... ... 23128 Supreme Court of Mississippi October 23, 1922 ... APPEAL ... from circuit ... acts. Railroad v. Adams, 77 Miss. 777; Railroad ... v. Adams, 85 Miss ... ...
  • Edwards Hotel & City Street Railroad Co. v. City of Jackson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1910
    ... ... CITY OF JACKSON No. 14267 Supreme Court of Mississippi March 14, 1910 ... [51 So. 803] ... FROM ... the ... court by its decision in Railroad Co. v. Wirt Adams, ... 77 Miss. 194, bottom of page 266 ... The ... court will ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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