Brooks v. Railroad Company

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWAITE
CitationBrooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U.S. 107, 26 L.Ed. 91 (1880)
Decision Date01 October 1880
PartiesBROOKS v. RAILROAD COMPANY

MOTION for leave to file a petition for rehearing.

This case was, on appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, determined at the last term. It is reported in 101 U. S. 443.

Mr. Joseph E. McDonald and Mr. John M. Butler in support of the motion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

A petition for rehearing after judgment, under the rule promulgated in Public Schools v. Walker (9 Wall. 603), cannot be filed except at the term in which the judgment was rendered. In Hudson & Smith v. Guestier (7 Cranch, 1), a motion was made at the February Term, 1812, for a rehearing in a case decided two years before; but the court said 'the case could not be reheard after the term in which it was decided.' At the end of the term, the parties are discharged from further attendance on all causes decided, and we have no power to bring them back. After that, we can do no more than correct any clerical errors that may be found in the record of what we have done.

In Brown v. Aspden (14 How. 25), where the practice in respect to orders for rearguments was first formally announced, the rule in this particular was not extended, for Mr. Chief Justice Taney was careful to say that the order for reargument might be made after judgment, provided it was entered at the same term; and the same...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
44 cases
  • Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • April 18, 1984
    ... 586 F. Supp. 1176 ... RALSTON PURINA COMPANY, A Corporation, Plaintiff, ... FAR-MAR-CO, INC., A Corporation, Defendant ... No. 76 426 C6 ... ...
  • Glass Co v. Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1944
    ...Sibbald v. United States, supra, 12 Pet. at page 492, 9 L.Ed. 1167; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, supra; Brooks v. Burlington & S. W. Railroad Co., 102 U.S. 107, 26 L.Ed. 91; Barney v. Friedman, 107 U.S. 629, 2 S.Ct. 830, 27 L.Ed. 601; Hickman v. Fort Scott, supra, 141 U.S. at page 419,......
  • Gratiot v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1893
    ... ... the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, should have been ... given. Zimmerman v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 490; ... Yarnall v. Railroad, 75 Mo. 583; Moody v ... Railroad, 68 Mo. 470; Abbett v. Railroad, 30 ... Minn. 482; Rogstad v ... properly be considered. Hudson v. Guestier (1812), 7 ... Cranch 1, 3 L.Ed. 249; Brooks v. Railroad (1880) 102 ... U.S. 107, 26 L.Ed. 91; Milam Co. v. Robertson , 47 ... Tex. 222; Daniels v. Daniels , 12 Nev. 118. That ... ...
  • United States v. Bruce
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • October 7, 1943
    ...was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court. Brooks v. Burlington Railroad Company, 102 U.S. 107, 26 L.Ed. 91; Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603, 19 L.Ed. 650; Brown v. Aspden's Adm'rs, 14 How. 25, 14 L.Ed. 311; Cameron v. Mc......
  • Get Started for Free