West v. East Coast Cedar Co.
Decision Date | 04 February 1902 |
Docket Number | 427. |
Citation | 113 F. 742 |
Parties | WEST v. EAST COAST CEDAR CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
T. B Womack, for appellant.
E. F Aydlett and F. H. Busbee, for appellee.
Before GOFF and SIMONTON, Circuit Judges, and JACKSON, District Judge.
This case comes up on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of North Carolina. An action at law to recover possession of an interest in a large tract of land was pending on the law side of the court. The plaintiff at law, William A. West, filed a bill on the equity side of the court, praying an injunction against the East Coast Cedar Company, the defendant, restraining it from cutting timber on the land in dispute pending the action at law. An injunction was issued, and as a condition thereto an injunction bond was required from complainant. The case at law having terminated in favor of the defendant in this suit, the bill was dismissed, the injunction was dissolved, costs and disbursements were awarded the defendant, and the court adds:
Leave was granted to appeal from this judgment. The cause is here on several assignments of error, to wit: (1) Error in dismissing the bill; (2) error in dissolving the injunction before a final hearing, and at such final hearing dismissing at the cost of defendant; (3) in that costs were to be taxes against complainant, and not against the defendant; (4) in that it was adjudged that defendant recover of complainant and his sureties on the injunction bond such damages as the defendant may have suffered by reason of the issuing of the injunction and referring the case to a special master to ascertain and report the same, whereas his honor should have decreed that the complainant was not liable for any damages upon the injunction bond in this case.
The second and third assignments of error cannot be entertained in this court. They complain that costs are taxed against complainant. Costs in equity are within the discretion of the court, and hence no appeal lies to this court in the matter of costs. Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 10 Sup.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157; Mining Co. v. Sweeney, 24 C.C.A. 578, 79 F. 277. No abuse of this discretion is shown. Clarke v. Warehouse Co., 10 C.C.A. 393, 62 F. 328.
With regard to the first and fourth assignments of error, there is doubt at the threshold whether the decree below is final. If it had stopped at the dismissal of the bill, of course it would have been final. But continuing, the court below ordered a reference to inquire and report what damages, if any, defendant had suffered. So the bill is dismissed in words, but it is retained in effect, for the purpose of ascertaining the damages. The test of the finality of a decree is that, if it be affirmed in the appellate court, nothing will be required of the court below but to execute its own decree. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3, 1 Sup.Ct. 15, 27 L.Ed. 73. Or as it is put in Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U.S. 127, 5 Sup.Ct. 799, 29 L.Ed. 117:
'A judgment of a superior court remanding a case to an inferior court for entry of judgment, and leaving no judicial discretion to the latter as to further proceedings, is final.'
In the case at bar the order relating to the injunction bond, and damages thereunder, cannot be said to be within the pleadings. It is ordered simply in execution of the decree.
In McGourkey v. Railroad Co., 146 U.S. 545, 546, 13 Sup.Ct. 172, 36 L.Ed. 1076, the law is thus stated:
The provision in the order of the court below with reference to the damages is simply in execution of the decree, and imposes no judicial duties on the special master. He is to decide nothing. We are of the opinion that this decree, under this case, is final. This being the case, we see no error in the court below in dismissing the bill. It was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buggeln v. Cameron
... ... Kirker v. Owings, 98 F. 499 (508-510), 39 C.C.A ... 132; West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 110 F. 727; ... West v. East Coast Cedar Co., ... ...
-
Montgomery Light & Water Power Co. v. Montgomery Traction Co.
... ... Montgomery Light & Power Company, a West Virginia ... corporation, and the Montgomery Street Railway Company, an ... Co., 146 U.S. 536, 13 Sup.Ct. 170, 36 L.Ed ... 1079; West v. East Coast C. Co., 113 F. 742, 51 ... C.C.A. 416; Chase v. Driver, 92 F ... ...
-
Lawyers' Mortg. Inv. Corp. of Boston v. Paramount Laundries, Inc.
...Co., 243 U. S. 273, 279, 37 S. Ct. 283, 61 L. Ed. 715, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 1147;Leslie v. Brown (C. C. A.) 90 F. 171;West v. East Coast Cedar Co. (C. C. A.) 113 F. 742), it is not bound to exercise that power, but in its discretion may remit the obligee to his remedy at law. Baker & Bennett Co......
-
Cimiotti Unhairing Co. v. American Fur Refining Co.
... ... v ... Last Chance Mining Co., 90 F. 15, 32 C.C.A. 498. In ... West v. East Coast Cedar Co., 113 F. 742, 51 C.C.A ... 411, it was held that, ... ...