Delaware Co v. Rellstab

• Decision Date: 16 January 1928
• Docket Number: No. 141,141
• Citation: 276 U.S. 1,48 S.Ct. 203,72 L.Ed. 439
• Parties: DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. v. RELLSTAB, District Judge, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

276 U.S. 1

48 S.Ct. 203

72 L.Ed. 439

DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

v RELLSTAB, District Judge, et al.

No. 141.

Argued Jan. 5, 1928.

Decided Jan. 16, 1928.

Messrs. M. M. Stallman, of Newark, N. J., and Frederic B. Scott, of New York City, for petitioner.

Messrs. Harry Kalisch and Isidor Kalisch, both of Newark, N. J., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 2-4 intentionally omitted]Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case one Ginsberg, in December, 1921, recovered judgment in the District Court against the petitioner for injuries to himself and a minor son and for the death of another son, caused by a collision, at a crossing, between the plaintiff's truck and one of the petitioner's trains.The judgment afterwards was set aside on the evidence of two important witnesses, husband and wife, that they had committed perjury at the trial.A new trial was had which resulted in a judgment for the defendant, the present petitioner.The judgment was entered on June 21, 1923.It was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error and on March 21, 1924, a mandate from that court affirmed the judgment with costs.SeeGinsberg v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 296 F. 439.The witnesses who had testified for the plaintiff at the first trial testified for the defendant at the second, and after the term of the District Court in which the foregoing steps had been taken had expired without being extended in any form, the husband made an affidavit showing that his testimony at both trials was false and that in fact he knew nothing about the matter.The trial Judge was applied to, and after hearing testimony in open courthe made an order on May 9, 1925, purporting to set aside the judgment that had been affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals during a previous unextended term.The petitioners thereupon applied to the Circuit Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to reinstate the judgment, but the Circuit Court of Appeals held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the writ.15 F.(2d) 137.A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.273 U. S. 685, 47 S. Ct. 247, 71 L. Ed. 840.

However strong may have been the convictions of the District Judge that injustice would be done by enforcing the judgment, he could not set it aside on the ground that the testimony of admitted perjurers was perjured also at the second trial.The power of the Court to set aside its judgment on this ground ended with the term.In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312, 320, 31 S. Ct. 18, 54 L. Ed. 1051.As the Court was without jurisdiction to vacate the judgment mandamus is the appropriate remedy unless to grant that writ is beyond the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals.In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312, 321, 31 S. Ct. 18, 54 L. Ed. 1051.We perceive no reason...