Central Nat Bank of Boston v. Stevens, No. 38
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 43 L.Ed. 97,171 U.S. 108,18 S.Ct. 837 |
| Parties | CENTRAL NAT. BANK OF BOSTON et al. v. STEVENS et al |
| Docket Number | No. 38 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1898 |
v.
STEVENS et al.
Edward Winslow Paige, for Aaron R. Stevens and others.
Page 109
C. E. Patterson, for Central Nat. Bank.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to amend the mandate in the above case seems to proceed on a misconception of the meaning of the judgment and mandate.
The judgment of this court does not undertake to affect or reverse the judgment of the supreme court of the state of New York, except in so far as that judgment sought to restrain the Central National Bank of Boston and the other plaintiffs in error from proceeding under and in accordance with the decree of the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York, and to compel them to again try in the supreme court of New York matters tried and determined in the circuit court. As between the other parties, the judgment of the supreme court of New York was, of course, left undisturbed, and it is not perceived that the terms of the mandate signify anything else, or imply the consequences suggested by counsel.
The motion is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. v. Lufcy, No. 30091.
...House Co. v. Butchers Union Slaughter House & Live Stock Co., 120 U.S. 141, 7 S. Ct. 472, 30 L. Ed. 614; Central Nat'l. Bank v. Stevens, 171 U.S. 108, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 807; Pittsburg, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Long Island Loan & Trust Co., 172 U.S. 493, 19 S. Ct. 238, 43 L. Ed. 528; Wa......
-
Hawkins v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., No. 2195.
...Ed. 588; Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union, 120 U. S. 141, 7 Sup. Ct. 472, 30 L. Ed. 614; Central National Bank v. Stevens, 171 U. S. 108, 18 Sup. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 97) may be authority sustaining the right to have this decision reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United Sta......
-
Wise v. Pacific States Life Ins. Co., No. 502-D.
...with the receiver's custody. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Latham (Tex. Civ. App.) 182 S. W. 717. See, also, Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 171 U. S. 108, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 97; Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432, 18 S. Ct. 403, 42 L. Ed. 807; Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc.,......
-
Stevens v. Cent. Nat. Bank of Boston
...costs, in so far as it affected the Central National Bank of Boston and the parties represented by it in the litigation. 18 Sup. Ct. 403,43 L. Ed. 97. The case was remitted to this court by the federal court, with its mandate that further proceedings be had in the state courts not inconsist......
-
U.S. ex rel. v. Lufcy, No. 30091.
...House Co. v. Butchers Union Slaughter House & Live Stock Co., 120 U.S. 141, 7 S. Ct. 472, 30 L. Ed. 614; Central Nat'l. Bank v. Stevens, 171 U.S. 108, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 807; Pittsburg, C.C. & St. L.R. Co. v. Long Island Loan & Trust Co., 172 U.S. 493, 19 S. Ct. 238, 43 L. Ed. 528; Wa......
-
Hawkins v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., No. 2195.
...Ed. 588; Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Butchers' Union, 120 U. S. 141, 7 Sup. Ct. 472, 30 L. Ed. 614; Central National Bank v. Stevens, 171 U. S. 108, 18 Sup. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 97) may be authority sustaining the right to have this decision reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United Sta......
-
Wise v. Pacific States Life Ins. Co., No. 502-D.
...with the receiver's custody. Kansas City, etc., R. Co. v. Latham (Tex. Civ. App.) 182 S. W. 717. See, also, Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 171 U. S. 108, 18 S. Ct. 837, 43 L. Ed. 97; Central Nat. Bank v. Stevens, 169 U. S. 432, 18 S. Ct. 403, 42 L. Ed. 807; Royal Trust Co. v. Washburn, etc.,......
-
Stevens v. Cent. Nat. Bank of Boston
...costs, in so far as it affected the Central National Bank of Boston and the parties represented by it in the litigation. 18 Sup. Ct. 403,43 L. Ed. 97. The case was remitted to this court by the federal court, with its mandate that further proceedings be had in the state courts not inconsist......