Washington Bridge Company, Appellant v. William Stewart, James Stewart, and John Glenn
Decision Date | 01 January 1845 |
Citation | 11 L.Ed. 658,3 How. 413,44 U.S. 413 |
Parties | WASHINGTON BRIDGE COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM STEWART, JAMES STEWART, AND JOHN GLENN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Columbia, held in and for the county of Washington, sitting as a court of equity.
The same case was before the court at January term, 1840, and the decree of the court below affirmed by the Supreme Court, but in consequence of the court being equally divided, no opinion was given, and no report of the case published. It now came up on an allegation that it was improperly brought up before, as the decree, from which the appeal was taken, was said not to be a final decree.
The case was this:
The Washington Bridge Company were the owners of a bridge across the Potomac river, under a charter granted in 1808. In February, 1831, a large part of the bridge was broken up and carried away by the ice and flood; and in April, the president and directors called for an instalment of ten dollars per share from the stockholders, for the purpose of repairing it. The defendants in error did not pay, and their shares were forfeited on the 21st of June, 1832, under the 8th section of the charter.
On the 14th of July, 1832, Congress passed an act to purchase the bridge, and appropriated $20,000 for that purpose, which they directed to be divided amongst the stockholders in the manner therein pointed out.
In May, 1833, the defendants in error filed a bill in the Circuit Court claiming to be stockholders, and, as such, to be entitled to a distributive share of the purchase money. The bridge company resisted the claim on the ground that their shares had been forfeited, and in November, 1838, the cause came on for hearing on the bill, answers, exhibits, depositions, and general replication, when the court made the following decree:
'This cause having been set for hearing upon the bill, answer, general replication, exhibits, and evidence, and coming on to be heard and argued by counsel, it is, on this twenty-ninth day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-eight, after full consideration, ordered, decreed, and adjudged, that the rights and interests of the complainants, and the other stockholders in said bill of complaint mentioned, and who have come in, or may come in, before the final determination of this cause, and procure themselves to be made parties to these proceedings, have not been, and were not, forfeited under and by virtue of the proceedings of said bridge company, stated and set forth in the said answer, and exhibits, and evidence, but that the same remain in full force and virtue, and that the said parties are respectively entitled to their proportion of the sum of $20,000, mentioned and stated in said bill of complaint as stockholders in said company; and that, in order to fix and adjust the said proportions or shares of said parties, there be first deducted the sum of $10,561.55, mentioned in said answer, being the sum advanced by certain stockholders, as therein mentioned, with interest thereon from the time the same was advanced to the time of the receipt of the said $20,000, being an average of nine months, for which said interest is to be calculated; also the sum of $568.25, being the amount of unclaimed dividends expended on the said bridge, with interest thereon from the time of said expenditure to the receipt of said $20,000, and that subject to such deductions; and, after the same shall have been made, the said complainants are respectively entitled to, and shall receive, their full share and proportion of the interest on the same, which shall have been earned and made of the said sums so due to them respectively pending this suit, under the investment made thereof by complainants.
'And it is ordered, that other items claimed to be deducted be rejected, no evidence having been offered to show their character or their amount.
'And it is further ordered, that the case be referred to the auditor, to state an account in conformity with the principles laid down in this decree.'
From this decree the bridge company prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court, where, as has already been stated, it was affirmed by a divided court.
In April, 1840, the case was referred by the Circuit Court to the auditor, who made the following report in November, 1841:
'That the holders of the four hundred and seventy-three shares, which were deemed by the company to have been forfeited, (but which the court decided were not forfeited,) according to the cost of the same, amount to $20,749.17, ten per cent. on the same (being the dividend paid to the first-mentioned stockholders) amounts to $2,074.91, as per statement B herewith, leaving a balance, after paying said amount, in the hands of the trustee of $1,147.50.
'The amount of the unclaimed dividends used for repairing the bridge, $568.25, and nine months' interest thereon, $25.57, making $593.82, has been in part paid, but a very considerable part, in all probability, never will be called for, as many of the persons who were entitled to it are dead, and some insolvent; their representatives knowing nothing of the small amount so many years due. The complainants, however, in the present cause, have no claim on the unclaimed money due to others.
'As regards the disposition to be made of the balance which will remain in the hands of the trustee, ($1,147.50,) after paying the stockholders ten per cent., the auditor begs reference to his remarks on the general statement herewith.
'Submitted by
'JOSEPH FORREST, Auditor.'
Whereupon the court made the following decree in the premises:
'By order of the court.'
From this decree the bridge company appealed to the Supreme Court.
Bradley, for the appellants.
Coxe, for the appellees.
Bradley referred to the record to show, that the decree first appealed from was an interlocutory, and not a final decree, and that the Supreme Court had not jurisdiction in such a case. He then proceeded thus:
The appellants are not estopped from denying the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to which they appealed in that cause, as the want of jurisdiction is apparent in the record. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
... ... J. Douglas, of Ogden, for appellant ... DeVine, ... Howell & Stine, of ... The Thomas D. Dee Company erected the ... original hospital as a memorial ... The ... case of William Budge Memorial Hospital v ... Maughan, County ... 30 C. J. 462, ... Stewart v. Cal. Med. M. & B ... Ass'n , 178 Cal ... of Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist v ... Treasurer, etc. , 37 ... 137, 86 A. L. R. 487; Mississippi: James v ... Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. , 153 Miss. 776, ... 151, 173 S.E ... 363; Washington: Richardson v. Carbon Hill Coal ... Co. , 10 ... Washington Bridge ... Co. v. Stewart , 3 HOW 413, 11 L.Ed. 658; ... ...
-
Messinger v. Anderson
... ... the United Realty Company and Rosewell E. Messinger, ... defendants; the ... remainder upon the death of his father, James H. Anderson, ... under the will of his ... The ... complaint charged the appellant's alleged title to be ... just what the proofs ... upon any new and subsequent appeal. Washington Bridge ... v. Stewart, 3 How. 413, 425, 11 ... ...
-
William Wrigley, Jr., Co. v. LP Larson, Jr., Co., 488.
...the Supreme Courts of several of the states. Ex parte Sibbald v. United States, 12 Peters, 491 (9 L. Ed. 1167); Washington Bridge Company v. Stewart, 3 How. 413 (11 L. Ed. 658); and Russell v. La Roque and Hatch, 13 Ala. 151. And the reason of the doctrine is obvious. The Supreme Court has ......
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Mandel
...reasons upon which it is founded appear in the opinion. For these views we have ample authority. The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66; Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. 413; Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107 , and 101 U.S. 555 ; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 3 Wall. 332; Beloit v. Morgan, 7 Wall. 619." 68 Md.......
-
REEXAMINING RECALL OF MANDATE: LIMITATIONS ON THE INHERENT POWER TO CHANGE FINAL JUDGMENTS.
...In re Nat'l Park Bank of N.Y., 256 U.S. 131, 133 (1921); Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410, 417 (1881); Wash. Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 44 U.S. 413, 424 (1845); Browder v. McArthur, 20 U.S. 58, 58 (1822); Cameron v. McRoberts, 16 U.S. 591, 593 (25.) Peck v. Sanderson, 59 U.S. 42, 42 (1855). (2......