Lodge v. Twell

Decision Date28 April 1890
PartiesLODGE et al. v. TWELL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Statement of Case from pages 232-234 intentionally omitted] S. S. Burdett, for appellants.

James I. Brownson, Jr., for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

It will be perceived that the decree did not identify the particular property to be delivered, nor specify the amount of money to be paid or collected. The court had found that Lodge and Beaumont had sol part of the original property, and realized therefrom about $2,500, but the exact amount was not determined by the decree, nor the amount of the rents, issues, and profits received by them, nor that Lodge and Beaumont, while directed to account for the property, should respond, as of the date of the invalidated sale, for the value of so much as they had disposed of, or for the proceeds only. The receiver was directed to sell the property delivered to him, but what that property would be necessarily could not appear until what had been sold by Lodge and Beaumont had been ascertained. Until these matters were adjusted, and the account taken, it was impossible to tell for what amount an order of payment or a money decree should go against the defendants Lodge and Beaumont, after the delivery of the property they had on hand to the receiver. What was left to be done was something more than the mere ministerial execution of the decree as rendered. The decree was interlocutory, and not final, even though it settled the equities of the bill. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Young v. Smith, 15 Pet. 287; Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, ante, 32. In Railroad Co. v. Swasey, 23 Wall. 405, 409, Mr. Chief Justice WAITE, in passing upon a decree of foreclosure and sale, observed that an appeal may be taken from such a decree 'when the rights of the parties have all been settled and nothing remains to be done by the court but to make the sale and pay out the proceeds. This has long been settled. The sale in such a case is the execution of the decree. By means of it the rights of the parties, as settled, are enforced. But to justify such a sale, without consent, the amount due upon the debt must be determined, and the property to be sold ascertained and defined. Until this is done the rights of the parties are not all settled. Final process for the collection of money cannot issue until the amount to be paid or collected by the process, if not paid, has been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Wells v. Shriver
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1921
    ...of the entire controversy between the parties. This case is directly in point, and was referred to with approval in Lodge v. Twell, 135 U.S. 232, 34 L. Ed. 153, 10 S. Ct. 745 (34:153). There are none of these cases which go to the extent of holding a decree of this kind final. While it dire......
  • Richmond v. Atwood, 3.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • September 27, 1892
    ... ... master for an account. The court held that the decree was not ... a final and appealable one. So in Lodge v. Twell, ... 135 U.S. 232, 10 S.Ct. 745, it was held that a decree setting ... aside a sale and appointing a receiver 'was ... interlocutory, ... ...
  • Odbert v. Marquet
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • November 4, 1909
    ... ... 138; Green v. Fisk, 103 U.S. 518, 26 L.Ed. 485; ... Keystone Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U.S. 91, 10 Sup.Ct ... 32, 33 L.Ed. 275; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U.S. 232, 10 ... Sup.Ct. 745, 34 L.Ed. 153; National Enameling Co., Ex parte, ... 201 U.S. 156, 163, 26 Sup.Ct. 404, 50 L.Ed. 707; ... ...
  • City of Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Water-Works & Irrigation Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1898
    ... ... Pease, 15 Utah 170; Nelson v ... Southern Pacific, 15 Utah 325; Bear River Valley ... Orchard Co. v. Hanley, 15 Utah 507; Lodge v ... Twell, 135 U.S. 232; Dainese v. Kendall, 119 ... U.S. 53; McGourkey v. Toledo etc., Co., 146 U.S ... 284; Eaton, etc., Co. v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT