Frank Woodworth v. Frank Chesbrough
| Decision Date | 21 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 180,180 |
| Citation | 37 S.Ct. 583,244 U.S. 79,61 L.Ed. 1005 |
| Parties | FRANK T. WOODWORTH, Plff. in Err., v. FRANK P. CHESBROUGH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Edward S. Clark, John C. Weadock, and H. M. Gillett for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Thomas A. E. Weadock for defendant in error.
This is a cross writ of error taken by Frank T. Woodworth, defendant in error in No. 179 [244 U. S. 72, 61 L. ed. ——, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 579], and is presented on the record in that case.
As stated in the opinion in No. 179, the circuit court of appeals reversed the judgment obtained by Woodworth against Chesbrough on the ground that certain amounts computed in the judgment were not sustained by the evidence, and therefore remanded the case for a new trial. Thereupon Woodworth moved to modify the opinion and judgment in such manner as to permit him to remit such part of it as the court thought was not supported by the evidence, and that the judgment, as modified, be affirmed. The motion was denied.
A new trial was had, again resulting in a verdict and judgment for Woodworth. The court of appeals again decided that it was excessive, but gave Woodworth permission to file a remission of the excess. This he did.
The remittitur recited that plaintiff remits from the judgment the sum of $7,708.56, leaving the amount of the judgment to be $16,005.44. It was stated that it was done in compliance with the opinion of the circuit court of appeals 'for the sole purpose of obtaining an entry of final judgment herein, and of securing the affirmance of that part of the judgment which is not so remitted, and is intended to be without prejudice to plaintiff in any cross proceeding hereafter prosecuted by him before the Supreme Court of the United States, which cross proceeding follows and continues to be in connection with any proceeding prosecuted in that court by defendant for the purpose of reviewing said judgment of the circuit court of appeals.'
The court of appeals then rendered the following judgment:
'This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Michigan, northern division, and was argued by counsel.
'The court having filed its opinion, and defendant in error, Woodworth, having thereupon filed in this court a certified copy of a remittitur filed by him in the court below, whereby it appears that the judgment complained of herein has been reduced by the sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rangolan v. County of Nassau
...v. Gilmer, 131 U.S. 22, 29-30, 9 S.Ct. 696, 33 L.Ed. 110 (1889), or by filing a cross-appeal, see, e.g., Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U.S. 79, 82, 37 S.Ct. 583, 61 L.Ed. 1005 (1917); Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52, 15 S.Ct. 751, 39 L.Ed. 889 (1895); Fiacco v. C......
-
Call Carl, Inc. v. BP Oil Corp.
...anomalously, it seems to us it has long been settled by the Supreme Court against appealability. See Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U.S. 79, 37 S.Ct. 583, 61 L.Ed. 1005 (1917); Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52, 15 S.Ct. 751, 39 L.Ed. 889 (1895). Cf. Lewis v. Wilson......
-
C&C Constr. v. Nales-Martinez
...(1894); Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52, 15 S.Ct. 751, 39 L.Ed. 889 (1895); Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U.S. 79, 82, 37 S.Ct. 583, 61 L.Ed. 1005 (1917); see also Spence, 806 F.2d 1206 (internal citations omitted)(“The gravity of accepting the remittitur ... is ......
-
Baudanza v. Comcast of Massachusetts I
...judgment with a definite floor or ceiling on damages, without the risk and uncertainty of a new trial. See Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 244 U.S. 79, 82, 37 S.Ct. 583, 61 L.Ed. 1005 (1917) (plaintiff may not "secure[] a judgment [by remittitur] and yet seek[] to retract the condition upon which ......