Southern Railway Company v. Postalco, TELEGRAPH-CABLE
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Brewer |
| Citation | 45 L.Ed. 355,179 U.S. 641,21 S.Ct. 249 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. POSTALCO |
| Docket Number | TELEGRAPH-CABLE,No. 64 |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1901 |
v.
POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CO.
This was a proceeding commenced by the Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (hereinafter called the telegraph company) against the Southern railway Company (hereinafter called the railway company) to acquire by condemnation the right to construct its telegraph line along and over the railway company's right of way through the state of North Carolina. The petition therefor was filed by the telegraph company in the office of the clerk of the superior court of Guilford county, North Carolina, on June 11, 1898. A summons was issued requiring the railway company to appear before the clerk of the superior court on June 22, 1898, and answer. On that day the railway
Page 642
company entered a special appearance and filed a petition and bond for the removal of the case to the United States circuit court for the western district of North Carolina. Sundry proceedings were had in that court, such as a motion to remand, which it is unnecessary to notice. On August 31, 1898, the telegraph company by leave filed an amended petition. On September 15, 1898, the court made an order by which it directed its clerk to appoint three commissioners to assess damages and prescribed their powers and duties. On September 19, 1898, the clerk appointed the commissioners as directed, and fixed the time and place for their meeting, and on the same day issued a notice to the railway company of his action. These orders were made on the application of the telegraph company and without notice to the railway company. Thereupon the railway company moved the court to set aside its order of September 15 and for leave to answer. On September 23 the court temporarily suspended the order of September 15. On October 24 an answer was filed, a demurrer of the telegraph company was sustained, and when the railway company asked leave to introduce testimony sustaining the averments of its answer the court overruled the application and refused to permit the railway company to introduce testimony, and so far as was needed reinstated its order of September 15, 1898. Before any further proceedings and without waiting for the assessment of damages by the commissioners and the confirmation of their award by the court, a writ of error and supersedeas was obtained by the railway company, and the case was transferred under such writ of error to the circuit court of appeals for the fourth circuit. That court, on March 31, 1899, dismissed the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that no final order had been entered in the circuit court. 35 C. C. A. 366, 93 Fed. Rep. 393. To review this ruling this writ of error was sued out.
Messrs. A. L. Holladay and Robert Stiles for plaintiff in error.
Mr. J. R. McIntosh for defendant in error.
Page 643
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
The single question we deem it necessary to consider is whether a final judgment or order had been entered by the circuit court which could be taken by writ of error to the circuit court of appeals.
Luxton v. North River Bridge Co. 147 U. S. 337, 341, 37 L. ed. 194, 196, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356, is decisive of this question. Indeed, little more seems necessary than a reference to the opinion in that case. There, as here, in condemnation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
...here: In Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U.S. 337, 13 S.Ct. 356, 37 L.Ed. 194, and Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355, both condemnation suits, appellate jurisdiction was denied where damages remained to be assessed. It was similarly de......
-
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., No. 109
...Telegraph Cable Co. v. Southern Railway Co., C.C.W.D.N.C.1898, 89 F. 190, 194 appeal dismissed, 4 Cir., 1899, 93 F. 393, affirmed, 1901, 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355. See Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 1838, 12 Pet. 524, 625, 9 L.Ed. 1181. For many years Congress has u......
-
School Dist. of Kansas City v. State of Mo., No. 77-0420-CV-W-1-3.
...relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. citations omitted Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. at 2205, 45 L.Ed. at 355. Without such limitations on the exercise of judicial power, the courts would be asked to decide abstract questions of wide public significa......
-
Evans v. Davidson, 6331
...P.2d 466, 469; 34 C. J., p. 743; Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195, 197; Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355.) Jurors will not be permitted to support or explain their verdict in the Pheby Evans case by affidavits which im......
-
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land, No. 349.
...here: In Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U.S. 337, 13 S.Ct. 356, 37 L.Ed. 194, and Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Tel. Cable Co., 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355, both condemnation suits, appellate jurisdiction was denied where damages remained to be assessed. It was similarly de......
-
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., No. 109
...Telegraph Cable Co. v. Southern Railway Co., C.C.W.D.N.C.1898, 89 F. 190, 194 appeal dismissed, 4 Cir., 1899, 93 F. 393, affirmed, 1901, 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355. See Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 1838, 12 Pet. 524, 625, 9 L.Ed. 1181. For many years Congress has u......
-
School Dist. of Kansas City v. State of Mo., No. 77-0420-CV-W-1-3.
...relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties. citations omitted Warth v. Seldin, supra, 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. at 2205, 45 L.Ed. at 355. Without such limitations on the exercise of judicial power, the courts would be asked to decide abstract questions of wide public significa......
-
Evans v. Davidson, 6331
...P.2d 466, 469; 34 C. J., p. 743; Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 24 L.Ed. 195, 197; Southern Ry. Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355.) Jurors will not be permitted to support or explain their verdict in the Pheby Evans case by affidavits which im......