William Carmichael v. Francis Eberle

• Decision Date: 26 March 1900
• Docket Number: No. 166,166
• Parties: WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, F. Kilgore, Robert Taylor, George Beardsley, James House, Thomas Coleman, William Flanigan, James Starkweather, Adam Hugg, Martha J. Shelton, George Shelton, T. M. Bertrand, and Charles Davis, Plffs. in Err. and Appts. , v. FRANCIS X. EBERLE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

177 U.S. 63

20 S.Ct. 571

44 L.Ed. 672

WILLIAM CARMICHAEL, F. Kilgore, Robert Taylor, George Beardsley, James House, Thomas Coleman, William Flanigan, James Starkweather, Adam Hugg, Martha J. Shelton, George Shelton, T. M. Bertrand, and Charles Davis, Plffs. in Err. and Appts.,

v FRANCIS X. EBERLE.

No. 166.

Submitted March 5, 1900.

Decided March 26, 1900.

Messrs.William B. Childers and H. L. Pickett for plaintiffs in error and appellants.

Mr. Thomas B. Catron for defendant in error and appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action in ejectment brought in the district court for the county of Socorro, in the territory of New Mexico, which resulted in judgment against one of the defendants and in favor of the other defendants, whereupon Eberle, plaintiff below, carried the case on writ of error to the supreme court of the territory.

At the July term, 1895, of that court, and on October 16, the following judgment was entered: 'This cause having been argued by counsel and submitted to and taken under advisement by the court upon a former day of the present term, the court, being now sufficiently advised in the premises, announces its decision by Associate Justice Collier, Chief Justice Smith concurring, Associate Justice Laughlin dissenting, reversing the judgment of the court below, for reasons stated in the opinion of the court on file. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that the judgment in this cause of the district court in and for the county of Socorro, whence this cause came into this court, be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and that this cause be, and the same hereby is, remanded to said district court, with directions to grant a new trial thereof. It is further considered and adjudged by the court that the said plaintiff in error do have and recover of said defendants in error his costs in this behalf expended, as well in the court below as in this court expended, to be taxed, and that execution issue therefor.'

December 17, 1895, defendants in error filed a motion for rehearing, pending which the court adjourned to court in course. At July term, 1896, and on August 11, this order was entered: 'This cause coming on for hearing upon the motion of said defendants in error, heretofore filed herein, for a rehearing of said cause, the same is argued by H. L. Pickett, Esq., attorney for said defendants in error, and by T. B. Catron, Esq., attorney for said plaintiff in error, and submitted to the court, and the court, not being sufficiently advised in the premises, takes the same under advisement.'

December 18, 1896, judgment was rendered as follows: 'This cause having been argued by counsel and submitted to and taken under advisement by the court on a former day of the present term, upon the motion of the said defendants in error for a rehearing of said cause granted herein at a former term, the court being now sufficiently advised in the premises, announces its decision by Associate Justice Collier, Chief Justice Smith concurring, Associate Justices Laughlin and Bantz dissenting, reversing the judgment of the court below, and remanding said cause for a new trial for...