Northwestern Fuel Co v. Brock
Decision Date | 16 March 1891 |
Citation | 139 U.S. 216,35 L.Ed. 151,11 S.Ct. 523 |
Parties | NORTHWESTERN FUEL CO. v. BROCK et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 216-218 intentionally omitted] D. B. Henderson and F. B. Daniels, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. A. Clark, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The alleged error of the court below is that it had no jurisdiction to render judgment for restitution of the money collected on the reversed judgment. This is put forth in different forms, but in no way variant in substance. The gist of the whole complaint is that the reversal by this court being for want of jurisdiction in the circuit court—such jurisdiction not affirmatively appearing—that court had no authority to act further in the matter than as directed by the mandate, and that that went only to the reversal of its judgment and the collection of the costs incurred in the appellate court. This position is supposed to be supported by those decisions whih h old that when a case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the circuit court to entertain the action or render the judgment entered the power of that court to award costs is gone. Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 250; Hornthall v. Collector, 9 Wall. 560, 566; Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 387, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. But here the jurisdiction exercised by the court below was only to correct by its own order that which, according to the judgment of its appellate court, it had no authority to do in the first instance; and the power is inherent in every court, while the subject of controversy is in its custody, and the parties are before it, to undo what it had no authority to do originally, and in which it, therefore, acted erroneously, and to restore, so far as possible, the parties to their former position. Jurisdiction to correct what had been wrongfully done must remain with the court so long as the parties and the case are properly before it, either in the first instance or when remanded to it by an appellate tribunal. The right of restitution of what one has lost by the enforcement of a judgment subsequently reversed has been recognized in the law of England from a very early period, and the only question of discussion there has been as to the proceedings to enforce the restitution. Thus in Anon. 2 Salk. 588, it was held by HOLT, C. J., that 'where the plaintiff has execution, and the money is levied and paid, and that judgment is afterwards reversed, there, because it appears on the record that the money is paid, the party shall have restitution with- out a scire facias, and there is a certainty of what was lost; otherwise where it was levied but not paid; there must then be a scire facias suggesting the matter of fact, viz., the sum levied,' etc. The same doctrine has been fully recognized by this court in U. S. Bank v. Bank of Washington, 6 Pet. 8, 17. In that case the court, after observing that the party against whom an erroneous judgment has been enforced does not lose his remedy against the party to the judgment, said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hendryx v. Perkins
... ... no authority or jurisdiction to do in the first instance; ... and, as said in Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, ... 219, 11 Sup.Ct. 523, 524, 35 L.Ed. 151, 'the power is ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line Co v. State of Florida State of Florida v. United States 8212 1935
...to him, the beneficiaries of the error. Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., supra; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, 11 S.Ct. 523, 35 L.Ed. 151; Ex parte Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co., 257 U.S. 6, 42 S.Ct. 2, 66 L.Ed. 101; cf. Haebler v. Myers, 132 N.Y. ......
-
Capital Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n
...proceeding, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954 (1929); Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, 11 S.Ct. 523, 35 L.Ed. 151 (1891); see also Restatement, Restitution, cit. supra. But while reviewing courts have power to direct that restituti......
-
William Whitman Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co.
...237, 63 L.Ed. 517; Baltimore & O. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 279 U.S. 781, 786, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, 219, 11 S. Ct. 523, 35 L.Ed. 151; Haebler v. Myers, 132 N.Y. 363, 30 N.E. 963, 15 L.R.A. 13 Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State of Florida, 295 ......
-
Remedies for Wrongfully-issued Preliminary Injunctions: the Case for Disgorgement of Profits
...of all payments made by the appellants in favor of the appellees, pursuant to a judgment subsequently reversed); Nw. Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216 (1891). See also Rodger v. Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris, (1871) L.R. 3 P.C. 465 (appeal taken from 31. See, e.g., Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. S......
-
When rules are more important than justice.
...court of justice ... to correct that which has been wrongfully done by virtue of its process.") (citing Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, 219 (159) Carlisle, 116 S. Ct. at 1471 (Stevens, J., dissenting). (160) Id. at 1472 (Stevens, J., dissenting). (161) Id. at 1472 nn. 1-2 (Ste......