RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
WHITE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Colorado Central Railroad Company sought review of a judgment against it for less than $5,000, claiming that the trial court judges disagreed on whether a jury instruction was erroneous. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ, holding that although disagreement between judges may invoke the Court's jurisdiction, the record showed no actual disagreement existed because the district judge's written opinion supported the instruction's correctness, indicating only the presiding circuit judge's opinion controlled the outcome. The Court emphasized that it would not exercise jurisdiction over cases falling below its monetary threshold merely based on formal certification of disagreement when substantive examination of the record reveals no genuine judicial disagreement occurred.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error brought by the Colorado Central Railroad Company, the defendant below, to reverse a judgment against it for less than $5,000. • The record shows that after a verdict in favor of the plaintiff below the defendant moved for a new trial; and on that motion the question arose, whether, “ under the facts and circumstances shown in evidence,” a certain instruction of the court to the jury “ was or was not erroneous.” The record then proceeds as follows : “ On which question the opinions of the judges were opposed, and final judgment entered on a verdict for the plaintiff. Whereupon, on motion of the defendants, by its counsel, that the point on. which the disagreement so happened may, during the term, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court to be finally decided, it is ordered that the foregoing statement of the pleadings and the facts, which is made under the direction of the judges, be certified according to the request of the defendant, by its counsel, and the law in that case made and provided.” The certificate thus ordered is signed by the circuit judge and the’ district judge. As the law now stands, if the judges in the Circuit Court disagree, a judgment must be entered in accordance with the opinion of the presiding judge, who, in this case, was the circuit judge. Rev. Stat., sect.
650. If he had been of the opinion that the instruction was wrong, the order necessarily would have been in favor of granting a new trial. Because the new trial wa¡s not granted, therefore, we must conclude that he thought the instruction right. To bring about a disagreement under these circumstances, the district judge must have held that the instruction was wrong; but, instead of that, we find his opinion in the record, apparently delivered in disposing of the motion for a new trial, in which he maintains with much force the correctness of the instruction.
In view of .these facts, as the amount in dispute is less than our jurisdiction requires, we must decline to take cognizance of the case. If the judges below are not able to agree upon the decision of any question of law which is material to the determination of a cause presented to them, our jurisdiction may be invoked to settle the differences ; but in such cases, if it appears upon an examination of the whole record that no such disagreement actually existed, we ought not to consider the question, even though it may be certified in form.
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1893)…. §. 426; and that if it appeared upon the record that no division of opinion actually existed among the judges of the Circuit Court, this court would not consider a question as certified even though it were certified in form. Railroad Co. v. White, 101 U. S. 98; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54; Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41. We regard the certificate before us as essentially defective. It does not specifically set forth the question or questions to be answered, and, apart from that, it does not state that i…
-
United States v. Gleeson, 124 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1888)…certificate of division of opinion, this court has steadfastly declined to answer questions not certified in accordance with the spirit,' as well as the letter, of the statutes upon that subject. Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54; Railroad Co. v. White, 101 U. S. 98; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426. It is true that there are cases in the books, in which' appeals from judgments of the Court of Claims, appearing to have been rendered pro forma, but no objection being taken on that ground, have been considered an…
-
Deppe v. Lufkin, 116 F.2d 483 (1st Cir. 1940)…license); Atchison, etc., Ry. v. O’Connor, 1912, 223 U.S. 280, 32 S.Ct. 216, 56 L.Ed. 436, Ann.Cas.1913C, 1050 (automatic forfeiture of right to do business plus monetary penalties on failure of payment); United States v. Lawson, 1879, 101 U.S. 164, 25 L.Ed. 860 (fear of dismissal on failure to comply). In United States v. New York Central R. R., 1929, 279 U.S. 73, 49 S.Ct. 260, 73 L.Ed. 619, the filing of the application for increased rates was considered a good protest against present rates. Nothing which…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence