Northern Pac Co v. Holmes, No. 64
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FULLER |
| Citation | 155 U.S. 137,39 L.Ed. 99,15 S.Ct. 28 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1894 |
| Docket Number | No. 64 |
| Parties | NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. HOLMES |
v.
HOLMES.
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
-
Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Com'n, No. 7018.
...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.
...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.
...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.
...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. ......
-
Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Com'n, No. 7018.
...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.
...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.
...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.
...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. ......