SCHELL
v.
DODGE; BARNEY V. ISLER; BARNEY V. COX; BARNEY V. FRIEDMAN
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.
These consolidated cases involved customs collectors sued to recover duties paid, where the Supreme Court dismissed writs of error at the government's motion without affording the defendants in error an opportunity to be heard and without awarding interest for the delay caused by the pending writs. The Court held that it lacked the power to modify its judgments or mandates after the term had closed to add interest or change the dismissal to an affirmance, even though such relief would have been available had the defendants timely requested it. The applications to correct the judgments were denied.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Blatcheord delivered the opinion of the court.
These are all suits in each of which a judgment was rendered against a late collector of customs for the recovery of money paid as duties. There has been a certificate of probable cause in each. A writ of error in each case was brought here by direction of the government. When the cases were reached in order on the docket of this court at October Term, 1881, the Solicitor-General, on the part of the government, moved that the writs of error be dismissed, as presenting no question which he desired to argue. This was done. There was no affirmance of the judgments below, and the judgments and mandates of this court contained no direction as to interest on the judgments below during the time the writs of error were pending. Those judgments were rendered in 1878, and suspended by the writs of error for over three years. In the Dodge case the mandate was issued, but has never been presented to the court below. In the other cases, the mandates were issued and presented to the court below, and orders for judgment were entered thereon. Counsel for the defendants in error in the Dodge case were present in this court when that case was so dismissed, but in the other cases no counsel for the defendants in error was present, and the motions to dismiss were made without their knowledge, and the mandates were not issued till after the close of the term.
The defendants in error now apply to this court to correct the judgments and mandates in these cases, so as to award to them interest as such or as damages for delay. There is no doubt that, if the defendants in error in these cases had in season asked for judgments of affirmance, their applications would have been granted, and interest would have been allowed, in accordance with the decision in Schell v. Cochran, ante, p. 625. But the difficulty now is that we have no power to vary the judgments or the mandates, after the close of the term, no especial right to do so in these cases having been reserved. It has always been held by this court that it has no power, after the term has passed, and a cause has been dismissed or otherwise finally disposed of here, to alter its judgment in such a particular as that now asked for, the change of a dismissal of a writ of error, with its legal consequences, to an affirmance of the judgment below, with its legal consequences, and not an error of mere form, or a clerical error, or a misprision of the clerk, or the like. Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480; Bank of the United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38.
Applications denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1944)…ch 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 it was entered. If the omission in…
-
Phillips & Another v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1886)…ary or affect it in any material .thing. Bills of review, in cases in equity, and writs of error coram vobis at law, are exceptions which cannot affect the present'motion.” - And see Bank of the United States v. Moss, 6 How. 31, 38; Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629. ,ít is equally well established by the decisions of this court [*675] that the appropriate remedy for relief against, judgments at law, wrongfully obtained, is by a bill in equity, and the cases in which that remedy is applicable have been clearly…
-
Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 275 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1927)…n to retax costs would amend the judgment after the term and must be denied, for the rear son that this Court has no further jurisdiction in the matter. Peck v. Sanderson, 18 How. 42; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 491, 492; Schell v. Dodge, 107 U. S. 629, 630; Phillips v. Negley, 117 U. S. 665, 674. In answer, it is said that this limitation upon the power of the court does not include mere misprisions of the clerk or clerical errors. Bank of Kentucky v. Wistar, 3 Pet. 431 ; Bank of United States v.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The President v. Moss, 6 How. 31 (U.S. 1848)
- Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480 (U.S. 1836)