Edmund Rice, Plaintiff In Error v. the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 01 December 1858
• Citation: 16 L.Ed. 31,21 How. 82,62 U.S. 82
• Parties: EDMUND RICE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE MINNESOTA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

62 U.S. 82

21 How. 82

16 L.Ed. 31

EDMUND RICE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE MINNESOTA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

December Term, 1858

THIS was a case which was brought before this court from the Territory of Minnesota.

It was before the court at the preceding term, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson now moved to revoke the mandate and annul the judgment of dismissal which was entered at the last term.

The motion was as follows:

'This cause was on the calendar of the last term, No. 109. It was then, after argument, dismissed for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the judgment below was not a final one, within the meaning of the act of Congress. A mandate was issued to that effect by the clerk of this court, in due course, but has not as yet been filed in the court below. Since the decision of this court, the clerk of the court below has transmitted to one of the counsel of the defendants in error an amended transcript, by which it appears, as the fact was, that the judgment below was a final one, and that the failure to have had it appear in the first transcript was the error of the clerk or his deputy, by whom that transcript was made up. Under these circumstances, the undersigned, as counsel for the defendants in error, moves the court to revoke the mandate and annul the judgment of dismissal of the last term, and order the case to stand on the calendar, as it would stand, at the present term, if such judgment had not been rendered, but the case had been continued. He makes this motion, because it is important to the interests of the defendants in error that the case be decided at the earliest moment upon its merits, and will, at the hearing of the motion, submit decisions of this court in maintenance of this motion.

'REVERDY JOHNSON,

'Counsel for Defendants in Error.'

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was brought up, by a writ of error, directed to the judges of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Minnesota, he writ being returnable to the last term of this court. The case was docketed and called for trial according to the rules of the court; but, upon inspection of the transcript, it appeared that there was no final judgment in the court below, and the case was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

At a subsequent day in that term, a motion was made by the plaintiff in error for a certiorari, upon affidavits filed, suggesting that there had been a final judgment in the Territorial court, although it had not been correctly entered on the record. But the court were of opinion that the affidavits were not sufficient to support the motion, and refused the certiorari.

A motion has been made at the present term to annul the order of dismissal made at the last term, and to place the suit on the calendar in the same order in which it would have stood if it had not been dismissed, but continued over to the present term. And in support of this motion, a transcript from the Territorial court has again been presented; and this transcript contains a final judgment of the Supreme Court of the...