East Tennessee Co v. Southern Tel Co
| Decision Date | 09 April 1888 |
| Citation | 31 L.Ed. 853,125 U.S. 695,8 S.Ct. 1391 |
| Parties | EAST TENNESSEE, V. & G. R. CO. v. SOUTHERN TEL. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Gaylord B. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Gunter, for defendant in error, made no appearance.
It having been suggested to us that there is no longer any real controversy between the parties to this suit about the matters therein originally involved, and that the Western Union Telegraph Company is at this time practically both plaintiff and defendant, it is ordered that this writ of error be dismissed, unless the plaintiff in error show cause to the contrary on or before the 17th day of February. The clerk will serve a copy of this order at once on the counsel of record for the plaintiff in error, through the mail.
(February 20, 1888.)
THE CHIEF JUSTICE made the following announcement:
The showing in this case against the order to dismiss does not satisfy us that there exists any longer a real controversy in the suit. It is conceded that the Western Union Telegraph Company is now occupying the line under a contract with the railroad company which gives it an exclusive right in that behalf, and it is not denied that some arrangement has been made with the Southern Telegraph Company by which that company no longer is a contestant in the cause. Time is given the railroad company until the 19th day of March next to make a further showing in the premises, if it desires to do so.
(April 9, 1888.)
It was suggested by a letter from counsel employed on one side of this suit that his party had sod out the interest which it had to the other party, who was prosecuting it now, and was dominus litis on both sides. A ruling was made some time ago, before the death of the late chief justice, in effect that there was sufficient evidence to that effect to require the case to be dismissed, unless the side now presecuting it for decision would show satisfactory evidence that it was a bona fide suit. Two attempts have been made, and we are agreed in the opinion that they are both failures, and that the original order should now be carried out, dismissing the case on the grounds set forth in the opinion of the chief justice, delivered at the time.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gould v. Control Laser Corp.
...300, 301, 12 S.Ct. 921, 36 L.Ed. 712 (1892) (quoting Brief for Amador Medean); accord East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R.R. v. Southern Tel. Co., 125 U.S. 695, 696, 8 S.Ct. 1391, 1392, 31 L.Ed. 853 (1888). Patlex, as it must, concedes that this is the controlling principle of law, but in its brief......
-
Schmertz Wire Glass Co. v. Western Glass Co.
... ... 93; American Wood Paper Co. v ... Heft, 8 Wall. 333, 19 L.Ed. 379; East Tennessee, ... etc., Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 125 U.S. 695, 8 Sup.Ct ... 1391, 31 L.Ed. 853; ... ...
-
Hamburg-American Line v. United States
...or controversy between adverse parties, so that dismissal of the libel was mandatory. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia R. Co. v. Southern Telegraph Co., 1888, 125 U.S. 695, 8 S.Ct. 1391, 31 L.Ed. 853; South Spring Hill Gold Mining Co. v. Amador Medean Gold Mining Co., 1892, 145 U.S. 300, ......
-
State Ex Rel. Westenhaver v. Lambert
...12 Sup. Ct 103, 35 L. Ed. 906; Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547, 10 Sup. Ct 620, 33 L. Ed. 1016; East Tennessee, V. & Y. R. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co., 125 U. S. 695, 8 Sup. Ct. 1391, 31 L. Ed. 853; Addington v. Burke, 125 U. S. 690, 8 Sup. Ct. 1391, 31 L. Ed. 853; Ratliff v. Patton, 37 W. Va.......