BROOKS
v.
RAILROAD COMPANY
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.
A railroad employee sought a rehearing after judgment was rendered in his case against the railroad company. The Supreme Court held that petitions for rehearing must be filed during the same term in which judgment was rendered, and once a term ends, the Court lacks power to rehear cases and can only correct clerical errors in the record. This decision established the procedural requirement that rehearing motions are time-barred after the conclusion of the term in which judgment was issued.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
A petition for rehearing after judgment, under the rule promulgated in Public Schools v. Walker (9 Wall. 603), cannot be filed except at the term in which the judgment was rendered; In Hudson & Smith v. Guestier. (7 Cranch, 1), a motion was made at the February Term, 1812, for a rehearing in a case decided two years before; but the court said “ the case could not be reheard after the term In which it was decided.” At thé end of the term, the parties. are discharged from further attendance on all causes decided, and.we have no power to brihg them back. . After that, we can do no more than correct any clerical errors that may be found in the record of what we have done.
In Brown v. Aspden (14 How. 25), where the practice in respect to orders for rearguments was first formally announced, the rule in this particular was not extended, for Mr. Chief Justice Taney was careful to say that the order for reargument might be made after judgment, provided it was entered at the saíne term; and the same limitation is maintained in United States v. Knight’s Administrator, 1 Black, 488. Down to that time such an order could be made only on the application of some member of the court who concurred in the judgment, and this continued until Public Schools v. Walker (supra), when leave was given counsel to submit a petition to the same effect. In all other respects the rule is now substantially the same as it was before this relaxation.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944)…ecedents that, even in a case of such hardship, the District Court had no such power. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cr. 1; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480; Sibbald v. United States, supra, 492; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, supra; Brooks v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 107; Barney v. Friedman, 107 U. S. 629; Hickman v. Fort Scott, supra, 419; Bushnell v. Crooke Mining Co., 150 U. S. 82. Ex parte National Park Bank, 256 U. S. 131. “That court was powerless to modify the decree after the expiration of the term at which…
-
Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1881)…refused all applications for rehearing made after the adjournment of the court for the term at which the judgment was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court. Brooks v. Railroad Company, 102 U. S. 107 ; Public Schools v. Walker, [*416] 9 Wall. 603 ; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet 488; United States v. The Brig Glamorgan, 2 Curt. C. C. 236; Bradford v. Patterson, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky…
-
Wetmore v. Karrick, 205 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1907)…h support the general proposition that, at the end of the term at which judgment was rendered, the court loses jurisdiction of the cause. The principle was briefly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, in Brooks v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 107: “At the end of the term the parties are discharged from further attendance on all cases decided and we have no. power to bring them back. After that, we can do no more than correct any clerical errors that may be found in the record of what we hav…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Knight's Administrator, 1 Black 488 (U.S. 1861)
- Hudson & Smith Guestier, 7 Cranch 1 (U.S. 1812)
- Brown v. Mathias Aspden's Administrators, 14 How. 25 (U.S. 1852)
- Pub. Schs. v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603 (U.S. 1869)