ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO.
v.
SOUTHERN EXPRESS 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.
The Supreme Court held that a decree requiring a railroad company to transport an express company's goods at reasonable rates was final and appealable, even though it left open the possibility of future modifications to the rate structure based on changing circumstances. The Court established that a decree is final for appellate purposes when it terminates the litigation on the merits and leaves only enforcement to be done, and that ancillary matters like accounting for compensation during the pendency of the suit do not affect the finality of the judgment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered-the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the language above cited, he continued : ’
As Ave have had occasion to say at the present term, in Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, and Grant v. Phœnix Insurance Company, 106 U. S. 429, a decree is final, for the purposes-of an appeal to this, court, Avhen it terminates the litigation betAveen the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Under this rule we think the present decree is final. The suit was brought to compel the railway company to do the express' company’s business. . The controversy was about the right of the express company to require this to be done on the payment of lawful charges. It was no part of the object of the suit to have it definitely settled "what these charges should be for all time. " The point was to establish the liability of the railway company to carry. The decree requires the carriage, and fixes the compensation to be paid. It adjudges costs against the railway company, and awards execution. - Nothing more remains to be done by the court to dispose of the case. Inasmuch as the rales properly chargeable for transportation vary according to circumstances, and what was reasonable when the decree was rendered may not always continue to be so, leave is given the parties to apply for a modification of Avhat has been ordered in that particular if they, or • either of them, shall desire to do so. In effect the decree requires the railway company to carry for reasonable rates, and fixes for the time being the maximum of' Avhat will be reasonable.
The controversy Avhich the express company has'had referred to the master, about the compensation to be paid for the transportation during the pendency of' the suit, does not enter into, the merits of the case. All such matters relate to the administration of the cause, and the accounts to be settled under the present order are of the same general character as those of a receiver who holds property awaiting the final disposition of a suit. They are incidents of the main-litigation, but-not neces-' sarily a part of it. The supplemental order¿ made after the decree," relates only to the settlement of the accounts which ac-' crued pending the suit.
The motion to dismiss’is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (59 total)
-
State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Crill, 99 Fla. 1012 (Fla. 1930)…termined (3 C. J. 441; Oldroyd v. McCrae, 65 Utah 142, 40 A. L. R. 230; Riley v. Jarvis, 43 W. Va. 43; 26 So. E. R. 366; Fort Worth Imp. Dist. No. 1 v. Fort Worth (Tex.), 158 So. W. R. 164, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 994; St. L., etc., v. So. Exp. Co., 108 U. S. 24, 27 L. Ed. 638, 2 S. C. 6; Case v. Ladd (Mass.), 2 Allen 130, 2 E. C. L. 39) and that a judgment or decree is not final or appealable unless it determines the merits of the controversy or the rights of the parties and leaves nothing for future dete…
-
Whitaker v. Sparkman, 30 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1892)
-
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1945)…its review to “final decisions” in the District Court. A “final decision” generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U. S. 24,28. Hence, ordinarily in condemnation proceedings appellate review may be had only upon an order or judgment disposing of the whole case, and adjudicating all rights, including ownership and just compensation, as well as the right to take the proper…
Previewing 3 of 59 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (35 total)
- Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163 (U.S. 1873)
- Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201 (U.S. 1848)
- Bronson v. Schulten, 104 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1881)
- Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3 (U.S. 1882)
- Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251 (U.S. 1850)
- Paulina S. Whiting v. The Bank of the United States, 13 Pet. 6 (U.S. 1839)
- Basset v. United States, 9 Wall. 38 (U.S. 1869)
- Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black 419 (U.S. 1861)
- Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342 (U.S. 1868)
- Grant v. Phœnix Ins. Co., 106 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1882)