Ex parte Medway
| Decision Date | 01 October 1874 |
| Parties | EX PARTE MEDWAY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON petition for mandamus.
The case was thus: Medway had filed a petition in the Court of Claims for the recovery, under the Abandoned and Captured Property Acts, of the proceeds of ninety-four bales of cotton, of which he alleged himself to have been the owner, and which he alleged had been seized and sold by the United States, who now had the net proceeds, $17,386.20, in their treasury. A trial was had, and the court found as facts that the claimant was the owner of the number of bales stated, that they had been captured by the United States military forces at Wilmington, North Carolina, in February, 1865; that they had been turned over to the Treasury agent at Wilmington, and sold in New York, in August, 1865; and that the net proceeds thereof were in the treasury.
But it refused to find as another fact that which the plaintiff requested it to find, namely, 'that the whole amount of net proceeds of the said bales was $17,386.20.'
Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, who thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, 'in conformity with law and justice.' The record in the Supreme Court contained the foregoing findings, and showed the failure of the Court of Claims to make the computation and state the amount of proceeds.
The plaintiff then filed the mandate in the Court of Claims, and moved that court to proceed with the case from the point reached by the reversal, which proceeding he alleged would be 'in conformity with law and justice.' The court, however, refused to so proceed, and on the contrary, on the 5th of April, 1875, ordered that all the findings of fact originally made and filed, and upon which the case had been heard in the Supreme Court, should be set aside and held for naught, and that a trial be had de novo.
Mr. Thomas Wilson, for the plaintiff, now filed a petition in this court, setting forth these facts and praying that the judges of the Court of Claims show cause why a mandamus should not be issued to the said court, to compel it to vacate its said order of April 5th, 1875, and it proceed in obedience to the mandate of this court, and in conformity to law and justice in the case.
The judges of the Court of Claims showed for cause——
1st. That the mandate of the Supreme Court left the Court of Claims to decide what further proceeding in the case would be in conformity to law and justice; and
2d. That it was in conformity to law and justice to set aside the findings of fact which had been made on the first trial, and try the case de novo; and thereupon the said order of April 5th, 1875, was made.
The question now was upon the sufficiency of the return.
Mr. Thomas Wilson, for the petitioner:
The court below having once tried the case, and having decided every question of fact arising in it, except making the computation and statement of the amount in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kern v. Kelner
...the order of this court. This court did not undertake to say what further proceedings law and justice did or might require. In re Medway, 90 U.S. 504, 21 Wall. 504,23 L.Ed. 160. Hence, the trial court was left free to make any order or direction in the further progress of the case not incon......
-
Kern v. Kelner
... ... This court ... did not undertake to say what further proceedings law and ... justice did or might require. In re Medway, 90 U.S. 504, 21 ... Wall. 504, 23 L.Ed. 160. Hence, the trial court was left free ... to make any order [75 N.D. 714] or direction in the further ... ...
-
Houston v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...did not specifically tell us what ought to be done, but following its usual policy, as laid down in the case of Ex parte Medway, 23 Wall. (90 U. S.) 504, 23 L. Ed. 160, it left us free to proceed in accordance with our own idea of what law and justice required when all the facts in the case......
-
Musgrave v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of State of Colo., 87CA0346
...to make new findings and conclusions so long as there is no conflict with the ruling of the appellate court. See In re Medway, 23 Wall. 504, 90 U.S. 160, 23 L.Ed. 160 (1875). Cf. In re Estate of Painter, 671 P.2d 1331 The order in Musgrave I was a general remand and authorized the Panel to ......