Illinois Printing Co. v. Electric Shovel Coal Corp., 324-D.
| Decision Date | 24 August 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 324-D.,324-D. |
| Parties | ILLINOIS PRINTING CO. et al. v. ELECTRIC SHOVEL COAL CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Graham & Spivey, of Danville, Ill., for petitioner Goddard.
H. A. Swallow, of Danville, Ill., and Wm. P. McCool, of New York City, for Shovel Coal Co.
LINDLEY, District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The Electric Shovel Coal Corporation contends that the order allowing the claim and all other orders with reference to the same should be vacated, for the reason that the same was the result of fraud and deception upon the court and of mutual mistake of the parties, resulting in a wrongful allowance. Goddard and the United States contend that the order was one finally adjudicating the rights of the parties, and that, the term at which it was entered having expired, the court is without power to vacate the same.
It is obvious that the order was final in one sense of that word, for the reason that it was a final adjudication of the court as to validity of the claim and an appeal would have lain. In another sense, however, the order was interlocutory, for the reason that it was one of many of similar character entered in the course of an extended voluminous administrative proceeding, which in itself was not finally terminated until the entry of the order discharging the receiver and returning the property to the Electric Shovel Coal Corporation. Even then the court reserved jurisdiction over the sum represented by the amount of this claim.
I take it that Equity Rule 69 (28 U.S.C.A. following section 723) has to do with the allowance of rehearings of final decrees disposing finally of the subject matter after the term has expired and not to orders entered in the course of proceedings before termination thereof, all of which remain in the jurisdiction of the court, subject to modification or vacation until the court loses jurisdiction by final decree. As said by the Supreme Court in the case of Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U.S. 131, 57 S.Ct. 382, 81 L. Ed. ___, decided February 1, 1937, the court has the power for good reason to revise its orders upon seasonable application and before rights have vested upon the faith of its action, and it may vacate any order before the final termination of the cause upon application diligently made, and rehear the subject matter upon its merits, if no intervening rights will be prejudiced by its action. The doctrine has full applicability here. Indeed, it is most dubious, in the absence of any prejudice of either's rights, whether either Goddard or the United States is in position to protest against the vacation of an order, which the parties in interest have stipulated may be vacated and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acme Poultry Corporation v. United States
...144, 10 S.Ct. 487, 33 L.Ed. 865; Fultz v. Laird, 6 Cir., 24 F.2d 172; Bernard v. Abel, 9 Cir., 156 F. 649; Illinois Printing Co. v. Electric Shovel Coal Corp., D.C., 20 F.Supp. 181, affirmed 97 F. 2d 754; In re Pottasch Bros. Co., D.C., 11 F.Supp. 275; note 10 A.L.R. p. 603 et seq.; note 67......
-
Raymond v. Wickersham
...them all. Among them are Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 991; Illinois Printing Co. et al. v. Electric Shovel Coal Corporation, D.C., 20 F.Supp. 181; In re Rochester Sanitarium & Baths Co., 2 Cir., 222 F. 22; In re Evans et al., 42 Utah 282, 130 P. 217; and ......
-
Babbitz v. McCann
...its previous order, in the absence of a stay or supersedeas, is one that is inherent in a court. In Illinois Printing Co. v. Electric Shovel Coal Corp., 20 F.Supp. 181, 184 (E.D.Ill. 1937), the court "Every court has power to control, vacate, or correct its own decrees in the interests of j......
-
Parker v. Checker Taxi Company
...a sound, legal discretion guided by accepted legal principles. Assmann v. Fleming, 8 Cir., 159 F.2d 332; Illinois Printing Co. v. Electric Shovel Coal Corporation, D.C., 20 F.Supp. 181; Jones v. Jones, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 239; Independence Lead Mines Company v. Kingsbury, 9 Cir., 175 F.2d 983;......