UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1886-01-18
116 U.S. 402 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Caution
Also reported at: 29 L. Ed. 677 · 6 S. Ct. 631 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1776 · SCDB 1885-109
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

This motion is denied. The findings of fact on the first trial in the Court of Claims have not under our rules any place in this record. Those findings were set aside when the judgment thereon was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. On this appeal we consider only the findings at the second trial.

The original petition filed in the Court of dairies contained by reference the letter of September 1, 1876. In the amended petition, on which the last trial was had, this letter was omitted. It is not, therefore, any part of the record on this appeal. We decided on the former motion to send the case back for further findings, that it could not now be brought here as part of the evidence, and that it was not the proper subject of a special finding. We see no reason to reconsider that decision.

Motion denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1926)
    …0-112; Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. [*540] 270; United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214, 218-219; United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, 38-39; McClure v. United States, 116 U. S. 145; Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 116 U. S. 154; same case, 116 U. S. 402; District of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U. S. 146, 150; Brothers v. United States, 250 U. S. 88, 93. In this case the findings are direct, free from ambiguity, consistent, fully responsive to the issues, and contain nothing indicating that they or any…
  • Clackamas Cnty. v. McKAY, 219 F.2d 479 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
    …1 S.Ct. 197, 34 L.Ed. 811 (to compel delivery of a Treasury draft); United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 1888, 128 U.S. 40, 9 S.Ct. 12, 32 L.Ed. 354 (relating to a pension); United States ex rel. Carrick v. Lamar, 1886, 116 U. S. 423, 6 S.Ct. 424, 29 L.Ed. 677 (to compel a survey); United States ex rel. Goodrich v. Guthrie, 1855, 17 How. 284, 58 U.S. 284, 15 L.Ed. 102 (involving payment of a disputed salary); Decatur v. Paulding, 1840, 14 Pet. 497, 39 U.S. 497, 10 L.Ed. 559 (concerning allowance of a pens…
  • Dewey Elecs. Corp. v. The United States, 803 F.2d 650 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
    …judgment.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373, 101 S.Ct. 669, 673, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978); Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 6 S.Ct. 631, 633, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945). The government points out that, in district court litigation, liability and damages have been treated as parts of a single claim, requiring that both be resolved to have a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw