MOWER
v.
FLETCHER; SAME V. SAME & ANOTHER
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 judgments reversing a lower court's decision and directing the entry of judgment for the plaintiff are final judgments that may be reviewed by writ of error, because the litigation on the merits is completely terminated and only ministerial acts remain for the lower court to execute. The Court distinguished such final reversals from non-final reversal judgments that leave further proceedings to be conducted in the lower court.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr.- Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. Thesé motions are made oh the ground that the judgments for tbe review of which the writs of error were sued out are not final judgments. The judgment in each case is that the judgment of the State, District 'Court “ be, and the same is hereby,reversed-with costs, with directions to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County-to enter judgment upon the findings for '-the plaintiff as prayed for in his complaint.”
That judgment is final for the purpose's of a writ of error to this court, which terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, so that,-if there should be an affirmance here, the court below would have nothing to do but to execute the judgment it had already rendered. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, and the numerous cases there cited. The judgments in these cases are of that character. The litigation is ended, and the rights of the .parties on the merits have been fully determined. Nothing remains to be done but to require the inferior court to .perform the ministerial act of entering the judgments in that court which have been ordered. This is but carrying the judgment of the Supreme Court which has been rendered into execution. Nothing is left to the judicial discretion of the court below. The cases relied on in support of the motions to dismiss "were all judgments or decrees, of réversal, with leave for/further proceedings in the inferior court. Such judgments are not final, because something yet remains to' be done to complete the litigation.
The motion in each of the cases is overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Hull v. Burr, 64 Fla. 83 (Fla. 1912)….) 192; Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U. S.) 319; Kempe’s Lessee v. Kennedy, 5 Cranch (U. S.) 173; Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Lamp Chimney Co. v. Brass & Copper Co., 91 U. S. 656; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 799; Shawhan v. Wherritt, 7 How. (U. S.) 627; Graham v. Boston H. & E. R. Co., 118 U. S. 161, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1009; Begein v. Brehm, 123 Ind. 160, 23 N. E. Rep. 496; Mount v. Manhattan Co., 41 N. J. Eq. 211, 3 Atl. Rep. 726; Michaels v. Post, 21 Wall…
-
Whitaker v. Sparkman, 30 Fla. 347 (Fla. 1892)
-
Postum Cereal Co. v. Cal. Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (U.S. 1927)
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3 (U.S. 1882)