Northern Pac Co v. Holmes, No. 64

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFULLER
Citation155 U.S. 137,39 L.Ed. 99,15 S.Ct. 28
Decision Date12 November 1894
Docket NumberNo. 64
PartiesNORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. HOLMES

155 U.S. 137
15 S.Ct. 28
39 L.Ed. 99
NORTHERN PAC. R. CO.

v.

HOLMES.

No. 64.
November 12, 1894.

James McNaught and A. H. Garland, for plaintiff in error.

W. R. Andrews, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

James Holmes recovered judgment in the district court of the Fourth judicial district of the territory of Washington against the Northern Pacific Railroad Company. The railroad company prosecuted an appeal therefrom to the supreme court of the territory, and the judgment was affirmed by that court on February 2, 1888. 18 Pac. 76. Thereupon, and on the same day, the supreme court of the territory, on the application of plaintiff in error, entered an order granting it leave to file a petition for rehearing on or before July 17, 1888; giving 60 days after the determination of the petition within which to perfect proceedings upon appeal in the event that the petition should be denied, and staying all proceedings and withholding a remittitur pending the filing and determination of the petition and for 60 days thereafter.

The state of Washington was admitted into the Union November 11, 1889, and on March 8, 1890, an order was entered by the supreme court of the state, reciting the affirm-

Page 138

ance of the judgment by the supreme court of the territory and the order of that court of February 2, 1888, and, further, that 'the said petition having been filed within the time provided by the order of said court, and having been pending undetermined at the time of the admission of the state of Washington, and the organization of this, the supreme court of the state, and this court having directed the defendant in error to answer said petition, the said answer having been filed within the time provided by said order, and said petition and answer having been taken under advisement by this court, now, on this 8th day of March, A. D. 1890, the court, being fully advised in the premises, denies said petition for rehearing; to which ruling and judgment, as well as the judgment of the supreme court of said territory affirming the judgment of said district court, plaintiff in error, by its counsel, excepts, and said exception is allowed.' And it was ordered 'that a writ of error to the supreme court of the United States to the judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Washington, now a record of this court, and to the judgment, order, and ruling of this court upon the petition for rehearing, be and hereby is allowed.' Supersedeas bond was given and approved, a writ of error issued, and citation signed and served.

It is well settled that if a motion or petition for rehearing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Com'n, No. 7018.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 15, 1938
    ...S.Ct. 295, 38 L.Ed. 101; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Holmes, 155 U. S. 137, 138, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Harrison v. Magoon, 205 U.S. 501, 27 S.Ct. 577, 51 L.Ed. 900. Consequently, this court is without As the pe......
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 14, 1942
    ...L.Ed. 492; Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 1893, 150 U.S. 31, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986; Northern Pacific R. R. v. Holmes, 1894, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 1898, 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; United States v. Ellicott, 191......
  • Trowell v. Diamond Supply Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • October 16, 1952
    ...Murphy, 111 U.S. 488, 4 S.Ct. 497 [28 L.Ed. 492]; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 715 [24 L.Ed. 244]; [Northern Pacific] Railroad Co. v. Holmes, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28 [39 L.Ed. It is to be noted that under the Nebraska practice followed by the Circuit Court judgment was entered at once on the......
  • Hamilton v. United States, No. 46.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 11, 1943
    ...v. Carr, 161 Mich. 405, 126 N.W. 468. 5Public Law 512, 77th Congress, Act April 1, 1942, 56 Stat. 190. 6 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Holmes, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; United States v. Ellicott, 223 U.S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Com'n, No. 7018.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 15, 1938
    ...S.Ct. 295, 38 L.Ed. 101; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Holmes, 155 U. S. 137, 138, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Harrison v. Magoon, 205 U.S. 501, 27 S.Ct. 577, 51 L.Ed. 900. Consequently, this court is without As the pe......
  • Denholm & McKay Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., No. 3797.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • December 14, 1942
    ...L.Ed. 492; Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings, 1893, 150 U.S. 31, 14 S.Ct. 4, 37 L.Ed. 986; Northern Pacific R. R. v. Holmes, 1894, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 1898, 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; United States v. Ellicott, 191......
  • Trowell v. Diamond Supply Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • October 16, 1952
    ...Murphy, 111 U.S. 488, 4 S.Ct. 497 [28 L.Ed. 492]; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 715 [24 L.Ed. 244]; [Northern Pacific] Railroad Co. v. Holmes, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28 [39 L.Ed. It is to be noted that under the Nebraska practice followed by the Circuit Court judgment was entered at once on the......
  • Hamilton v. United States, No. 46.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 11, 1943
    ...v. Carr, 161 Mich. 405, 126 N.W. 468. 5Public Law 512, 77th Congress, Act April 1, 1942, 56 Stat. 190. 6 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Holmes, 155 U.S. 137, 15 S.Ct. 28, 39 L.Ed. 99; Kingman & Co. v. Western Mfg. Co., 170 U.S. 675, 18 S.Ct. 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192; United States v. Ellicott, 223 U.S. ......
  • 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