Aspen Mining Smelting Co v. Billings, Nos. 918

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFULLER
Citation37 L.Ed. 986,14 S.Ct. 4,150 U.S. 31
Docket NumberNos. 918,919
Decision Date23 October 1893
PartiesASPEN MINING & SMELTING CO. et al. v. BILLINGS et al. (two cases.)

150 U.S. 31
14 S.Ct. 4
37 L.Ed. 986
ASPEN MINING & SMELTING CO. et al.

v.

BILLINGS et al. (two cases.)

Nos. 918, 919.
October 23, 1893.

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER:

This was a bill of complaint filed by James O. Wood and others against the Aspen Mining & Smelting Company and others in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado on April 14, 1888, which resulted, upon final hearing on pleadings and evidence, in a decree, October 20, 1890,—one of the days of the May term, 1890, of the court,—dismissing the bill at the costs of the complainants. The record, after setting forth the decree, thus proceeds: 'And afterwards, and on, to wit, the 25th day of October, A. D. 1890, came again the said complainants by their solicitor aforesaid, and filed in said court, and in said cause, their motion for rehearing. And the said motion is in words and flgures as follows; to wit.' And then follows a lengthy application for rehearing duly indorsed as filed on that day. The November term, 1890, of the circuit court, began on the first Tuesday, being the 4th day of November, 1890, and adjourned on March 20, 1891. On April 26, 1891, the complainants filed in the cause a 'request for decision on motion

Page 32

for rehearing,' which recited that the motion had been submitted 'in open court at the beginning or very early in the last term.' The May term, 1891, opened on the first Tuesday, being the 5th day of Mary, 1891, and on that day the record recites that 'the motion for a rehearing of this cause having heretofore come on to be heard, and having been submitted upon briefs,' the court, being sufficiently advised, denied the motion. On the same day complainants prayed an appeal from the decree to the supreme court of the United States, 'which is allowed them, conditioned that they file herein their bond conditioned according to law in said appeal in the sum of three hundred dollars.' June 24, 1891, counsel filed a direction to the clerk to 'make out full record in the above-entitled suit for an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals at St. Louis, Mo.,' stating what was to be copied. On July 2, 1891, one of the days of the May term, 1891, of the court, complainants prayed an appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, and an order was entered vacating the order allowing an appeal to the supreme court of the United States, and allowing an appeal to the circuit court of appeals, conditioned upon the filing of bond in the sum of three hundred dollars, and on the same day such bond was filed and approved, together with an assignment of errors on appeal. Citation was issued August 15, 1891, and duly served From the records of this court it appears that the appeal was duly prosecuted to the circuit court of appeals, and the decree reversed July 5, 1892, and that thereupon the appellees petitioned for a rehearing, which was denied. The opinions of that court will be found reported in 10 U. S. App. 1, 2 C. C. A. 252, 51 Fed. Rep. 338, Id. 10 U. S. App. 322, 3 C. C. A. 69, 52 Fed. Rep. 250.

November 7, 1892, appellees on that appeal presented to this court their petition for a writ of certiorari under section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, which was denied on November 28th.

December 21, 1892, the complainants filed in the circuit court a mandate from the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, reversing the decree of the circuit court with costs, and directing the court to take fur-

Page 33

ther proceedings, and enter a decree in conformity with the opinion of said circuit court of appeals.

Objections on behalf of defendants Wheeler and the Aspen Mining Company were thereupon, on December 24, 1892, made to the jurisdiction of the circuit court to proceed further with the cause. January 13, 1893, these objections were overruled, and an application on behalf of the defendant Wheeler, that the question of jurisdiction be certified to the supreme court, was denied. The opinion is reported in 53 Fed. Rep. 561. The circuit court then January 24, 1893—entered a decree in pursuance of and in conformity with the directions contained in the opinion of the circuit court of appeals, in compliance with the mandate of that court. On March 21, 1893, an appeal was granted to the mining company and Wheeler to this court by one of the justices thereof, under the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1891. Bond to operate as a supersedeas was given as directed, and approved, and citation was issued and served. And in view of the allowance of the appeal the circuit court, on April 3, 1893, certified the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to make and enter the decree of January 24, 1893, or to proceed further in the case, to this court for decision. April 15, 1893, a short record was filed by appellees, and a motion made to dismiss the appeal, the consideration of which was objected to by counsel for appellants. The then number of the case was 1,325, and is now 918. On April 19th a full...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 practice notes
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • July 30, 1965
    ...has been applied to foreclose the lower court from considering on remand its own jurisdiction, Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986 (1893); Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 267, 3 L.Ed. 220 (1810) (per curiam), newly disco......
  • First Trust & Savings Bank v. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co., No. 11055.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • August 8, 1938
    ...35 S.Ct. 16, 59 L.Ed. 129; Zimmern v. United States, 298 U.S. 167, 56 S.Ct. 706, 80 L.Ed. 1118; Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31, 36, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986; Roemer v. Bernheim, 132 U.S. 103, 10 S.Ct. 12, 33 L. Ed. 277; Liebing v. Matthews, 8 Cir., 216 F. The petition ......
  • Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, No. 59
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • July 31, 1967
    ...(1885); Southard v. Russell, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 547 (1853) or reconsidering its own jurisdiction, Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986 (1893); Skillern's Ex'rs v. May's Ex'rs, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 267, 3 L.Ed. 220 (1810). The rule has even been applied......
  • Nelson v. Bailey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 7, 1939
    ...Company Limited v. Arkansas Central Railway Co., 128 U.S. 258, 9 S.Ct. 107, 32 L.Ed. 448;Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billigs, 150 U.S. 31, 35, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986;Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. Omaha, 8 Cir., 216 F. 848, 855;Parker v. New England Oil Corp., D.C., 15 F.2d 236, 2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
133 cases
  • Nelson v. Bailey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 7, 1939
    ...Company Limited v. Arkansas Central Railway Co., 128 U.S. 258, 9 S.Ct. 107, 32 L.Ed. 448;Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billigs, 150 U.S. 31, 35, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986;Omaha Electric Light & Power Co. v. Omaha, 8 Cir., 216 F. 848, 855;Parker v. New England Oil Corp., D.C., 15 F.2d 236, 2......
  • L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 15, 1906
    ...L. E. & St. L. Consol. Ry. Co. v. Wilson (Ind.) 32 N. E. 311, 18 L. R. A. 105; Railroad Co. v. Goodridge, 149 U. S. 680, 13 Sup. Ct. 970, 37 L. Ed. 986; Inman v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S. W. 37; B., C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436, 31 A......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 15, 1906
    ...472; L., E. & St. L. Consol. Ry. Co. v. Wilson (Ind.) 32 N.E. 311, 18 L.R.A. 105; Railroad Co. v. Goodridge, 149 U.S. 680, 13 S.Ct. 970, 37 L.Ed. 986; Inman v. St. L. S.W. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 37 S.W. 37; B., C. R. & N. R. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa 312, 48 N.W. 98, 12 L.R.A. 436, 31 Am.St.Rep......
  • Luther Lumber Company v. Sheldahl Savings Bank, 725
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 23, 1914
    ...49 O. St. 370; O'Keefe v. Foster, 5 Wyo. 343; Walker v. Moser, 117 F. 230; Bruner v. Marcum, 50 Mo. 405; Mining and S. Co. v. Billings, 150 U.S. 31; Breeding v. Nelson, (Mo.) 121 S.W. 1080; Carey Co. v. Vickers, 134 P. 851). The court distinctly held that the evidence failed to disclose any......
  • 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