MISSOURI, KANSAS AND TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
DINSMORE, PRESIDENT
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 Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company challenged a circuit court decree requiring it to carry freight for an express company at a fixed rate, arguing the decree was not final because it reserved the court's power to modify rates in the future and that the transcript was improperly certified. The Supreme Court held the decree was final because the rate had been fixed and the reservation of power to modify applied only to future circumstances, and that the clerk's certification was sufficient for jurisdictional purposes, though it granted a writ of certiorari to bring up additional evidence to clarify the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chiep Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This motion to dismiss is made because, as is alleged, 1, the decree appealed from is not a final decree, and, 2, the transcript is not properly certified.
1. As to the decree.
The case is in some particulars different from that of the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. The Southern Express Company, just decided, but in our opinion’ the differences do not materially affect the present question. ‘ The decree in this case, as in that, requires the railway company to carry for the express company, and fixes the rate of compensation, “ until the further order or decree of this [circuit] court.” In this case, the reference to the master “ to take and state an account between the parties as to the compensation that should be and has been paid during the litigation, and up to the final termination thereof,” was-entered before or at the time of the decree from which the appeal was taken. Still, in this, as in that, the reference is in respect to' matters affecting the administration of the .cause, and does not involve the merits. The reservation of power to-change the rates operates only on the future, and was-evidently intended for the purpose of enabling, the court to act in case a change should be required. As the decree stands, the express company can require the railway company to carry at the rate which has been fixed.
2. As to the certificate.
'. The clerk certifies the transcript sent up to be “ á true, full and perfect copy from the record of all the proceedings in the suit.” Certainly this is sufficient for all the purposes of jurisdiction. If, in point of fact, the certificate is not true, the' remedy is by certiorari, to supply deficiencies, and not by motion to dismiss.
To meet this view of the case.the appellee suggests diminution and asks_for a certiorari, to bring -up “the evidence taken before . . . William H. Rossington, as examiner, . . . (remaining on file in the office of the clerk, constituting exhibits, depositions, and proofs used on the argument' of the cause in the ... . circuit court.”
•' Upon the face of the decree' it appears that the case, was disposed of on demurrer to the bill. If that be the truth, the evidence on file is hot necessary for the hearing of -the appeal, but as the record, which is here, has not been printed in full, and the parties do not agree in their statements as to what it contains, we will grant the certiorari asked for, reserving all further questions until the return is made.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tampa Drug Co. v. Duncan, 92 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1926)…ich it would be very unjust and disastrous ‘to set aside. And yet this could be done in a large proportion of eases if mere grounds of suspicion of their insolvency were sufficient for the purpose.” In Stuckey v. Masonic Savings Bank, 108 U. S. 74, 27 L. Ed. 640, it is held: “A creditor dealing with a debtor whom he may suspect to be in insolvent circumstance, but of which he may not have sufficient evidence, may receive [*223] payments without violating the bankruptcy law. He may be unwilling to trust him…
-
Gulf Ref. Co. of La. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1925)…es upon them, jurisdiction being retained merely of so much of the decrees as might be necessary to carry them into execution by compelling an additional accounting in respect of oil extracted pendente lite. Mo. Kansas & Texas R. R. Co. v. Dinsmore, 108 U. S. 30; Winthrop Iron Co. v. Meeker109 U. S. 180, 183; Forgay et al. v. Conrad, 6 How. 201, 204; Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342, 345. The decision of the circuit court of appeals seems to have proceeded from the standpoint that one who continues [*137] in p…
-
Latta v. Kilbourn, 150 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1893)
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence