Richmond Co v. Thouron Richmond Ry Co v. Same
Decision Date | 10 March 1890 |
Citation | 33 L.Ed. 871,134 U.S. 45,10 S.Ct. 517 |
Parties | RICHMOND & D. R. CO. v. THOURON et al. RICHMOND & W. P. T. RY. & W. CO. v. SAME |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Pope Barrow, for appellants,
Chas. M. De Costa and Samuel Dickson, for appellees.
These are appeals from orders of the circuit court remanding the above-entitled cases to the state court, which appeals the records show were 'granted under the provisions of the act of February 25, 1889, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause.' Before the act of 1875, c. 137, (18 St. 470,) we held that an order by the circuit court remanding a cause was not such a final judgment or decree in a civil action as to give us jurisdiction for its review by writ of error or appeal. The appropriate remedy in such a case was then by mandamus to compel the circuit court to hear and decide. Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 606, 609; Turner v. Trust Co., 106 U. S. 552, 555, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 519; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507. The act of 1875 made such order reviewable, (without regard to the pecuniary value of the matter in dispute;) but by the act of March 3, 1887, (24 St. 552, 555,) as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888. (25 St. 433,) the provision to that effect was repealed, and it was also provided that no appeal orw rit of error should be allowed from the decision of the circuit court remanding a cause. In Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U. S. 56, 57, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, Mr. Chief Justice WAITE, speaking for the court, said: And the court held that the language of the act was broad enough to cover all cases, and also that an appeal or writ of error would not lie under section 693 of the Revised Statutes, because that section applied only to final judgments or decrees, and an order remanding was not a final judgment. The act of February 25, 1889, (25 St. 693,) provides that 'in all cases where a final judgment or decree shall be rendered in a circuit court of the United States, in which there shall have been a question involving the jurisdiction of the court, the party against whom the judgment or decree is rendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Greenwood v. Humphrey & Co., Inc
... ... determine the same. In doing so, it became his duty to ... inquire into the following ... jurisdiction ... Richmond ... & Danville Ry. Co. v. Thouron, 134 U.S. 45, 33 L.Ed ... 871, 10 ... ...
-
Smithson v. Chicago Great Western Railway Company
...the following cases: Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U.S. 56, 58; Wilkinson v. Nebraska, 123 U.S. 286; Sherman v. Grinnell, 123 U.S. 679; Richmond v. Thouron, 134 U.S. 45; Gurnee v. Patrick, 137 U.S. 143; Thayer, Jur. Ct. § 34; In re Pennsylvania, 137 U.S. 451; Missouri v. Fitzgerald, 160 U.S. 556. ......
-
Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Telluride Power Transmission Co.
...No appeal or writ of error lies, and not even mandamus. We refer to cases on the margin of the section. 123 U.S., pp. 56, 286, 679; 134 U.S., p. 45; 137 U.S., pp. 143, Following appellants' title, "Nature of the Action," we may say it is a proceeding to exercise the right of eminent domain,......
-
Vaughan v. McArthur Bros. Co.
... ... and the court on June 15, 1908, ordered the same referee to ... hear this motion and report thereon to the court. On March ... Grinnell, 123 U.S. 679, 8 ... Sup.Ct. 260, 31 L.Ed. 278; Richmond & Danville R.R. Co ... v. Thouron, 134 U.S. 45, 10 Sup.Ct. 517, 33 L.Ed ... ...