Missouri Ry Co v. Dinsmore
| Decision Date | 29 January 1883 |
| Citation | 108 U.S. 30,27 L.Ed. 640,2 S.Ct. 9 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. v. DINSMORE, President, etc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A. T. Britton, J. H. McGowan, Thos. J. Porter, John F. Dillon, Wager Swayne, and A. L. Williams, for appellant.
Clarence A. Seward, for appellee.
This motion to dismiss is made because, as is alleged, (1) the decree appealed from is not a final decree; and (2) the transcript is not properly certified.
1. As to the decree. The case is in some particulars different from that of the St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Southern Express Co., just decided, but in our opinion the differences do not materially affect the present question.*
Ante, 6. The decree in this case, as in that, requires the railway company to carry for the express company, and fixes the rate of compensation, 'until the further order or decree of this [circuit] court.' In this case, the reference to the master 'to take and state an account between the parties as to the compensation that should be and has been paid during the litigation, and up to the final termination thereof,' was entered before or at the time of the decree from which the appeal was taken. Still, in this, as in that, the reference is in respect to matters affecting the administration of the cause, and does not involve the merits. The reservation of power to change the rates operates only on the future, and was evidently intended for the purpose of enabling the court to act in case a change should be required. As the decree stands, the express company can require the railway company to carry at the rate which has been fixed.
2. As to the certificate. The clerk certifies the transcript sent up to be 'a true, full, and perfect copy from the record of all the proceedings in the suit.' Certainly this is sufficient for all the purposes of jurisdiction. If, in point of fact, the certificate is not true, the remedy is by certiorari to supply deficiencies, and not by motion to dismiss.
To meet this view of the case the appellee suggests diminution, and asks for a certiorari to bring up 'the evidence taken before * * * William H. Rossington, as examiner, * * * remaining on file in the office of the clerk, constituting the exhibits, depositions, and proofs used on the argument of the cause in the * * * circuit court.'
Upon the face of the decree it appears that the case was disposed of on demurrer to the bill. If that be the truth, the evidence on file is not necessary for the hearing of the appeal, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nashua & Lowell R. Corp. v. Boston & Lowell R. Corp.
... ... need nor ought to bring here the mass of the proofs following ... it. This conforms to the ruling in Railway Co. v ... Dinsmore, 108 U.S. 30, 2 Sup.Ct. 9, where apparently the ... case was disposed of on demurrer, and the court held that the ... evidence on file was not to ... ...
-
Whitaker v. Sparkman
... ... Kendall, 119 U.S. 53, ... 7 S.Ct. 65; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Exp ... Co., 108 U.S. 24, 2 S.Ct. 6; Railroad Co. v ... Dinsmore, 108 U.S. 30, 2 S.Ct. 9; Forgay v. Conrad, ... 6 How. 201; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor, ... 100 Ill. 478; Myers v. Manny, 63 Ill. 211; ... ...
-
Gulf Refining Co of Louisiana v. United States Mullen v. Same
...into execution by compelling an additional accounting in respect of oil extracted pendente lite. Mo., Kansas & Texas R. R. Co. v. Dinsmore, 108 U. S. 30, 2 S. Ct. 9, 27 L. Ed. 640; Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker, 109 U. S. 180, 183, 3 S. Ct. 111, 27 L. Ed. 898; Forgay et al. v. Conrad, 6 How. ......
-
Easton v. Houston & T.C. Ry. Co.
...enforce by execution what has been determined. See St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Southern Exp. Co., 108 U.S. 24, 2 S.Ct. 6; Railway Co. v. Dinsmore, 108 U.S. 30, 2 S.Ct. 9; parte Norton, 108 U.S. 237, 2 S.Ct. 490. When an intervention under a claim of a prior lien is dismissed, the order as to......