RICHMOND AND DANVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
THOURON; RICHMOND AND WEST POINT TERMINAL RAILWAY AND WAREHOUSE CO. V. THOURON
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 orders by a Circuit Court remanding cases to state court are not final judgments or decrees subject to appellate review under the Act of February 25, 1889, even when jurisdiction is questioned, and therefore dismissed appeals from such remand orders for lack of jurisdiction. The Court interpreted the statutory language "final judgment or decree" consistently with prior legislation and precedent, concluding that remand orders fall outside the scope of reviewable decisions regardless of the grounds for remand.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
These are appeals from orders of the Circuit Court remanding the above-entitled cases to the state court, which appeals the records show wére “ granted under the provisions of the act-of February 25, 1889, on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the cause.” Before the act of 1875, c. 137,18 Stat. 470, we held that an order by the Circuit Court remanding a cause was not such a final judgment or decree in a civil action as to give us jurisdiction for its review by writ of error or appeal. The appro-. priate remedy in such a case was then, by mandamus, to compel the Circuit Court to hear and decide. Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U. S. 606, 609; Turner v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 106 U. S. 552, 555; Railroad Company v. Wiswall, 23 Wall.
507. The act of 1875 made such order'revie wable (without regard to the pecuniary value of.the matter in dispute) ; but by the act of March 3, 1887, 24 Stat. 552, 555, c, 373, as corrected by the act of August 13,1888, 25 Stat. 433, c. 866, the provision to. that effect was repealed, and it was also provided that no appeal or writ of error should be allowed from the decision of the Circuit Court remanding a-cause. In Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U. S. 56, 57, Mr. Chief-Justice Waite, speaking for the court, said: “ It is difficult to see what more could be done to make" the action of. the Circuit Court final, for all the purposes of the.removal, and not the subject of review in this court.
First, it is declared that there shall be no appeal on writ of error in such a case, and then, to make the matter doubly sure, the only statute which ever gave the right of such-an appeal or writ of error is repealed.” And the court held that the language of the act was broad enough to cover all cases, and also that an appeal or writ of error would not lie under § 693 of the Revised Statutes, because that section applied only to final judgments or decrees', and an order remanding was not a final judgment.
The act of February 25,-1889, 25 Stat. 693, c. 236, provides that “ in all cases where a final judgment or decree shall be rendered in a Circuit Court of the United -States in which .there shall have been a question involving the jurisdiction of the-court, the party against whom the judgment or decree is rendered-shall be entitled to ah appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to review such judgment or decree, without reference to the amount of the same; but in cases where the decree or-judgment does hot.exceed the sum of five thousand dollars the Supreme Court shall not re view any question raised upon the record except such question of jurisdiction.”
The words “ a final judgment or decree,” in this act, are manifestly used in the-same sense as in the prior statutes which have received interpretation, and these orders to remand were not final judgments or decrees whatever the ground upon which the Circuit Court proceeded. Graves v. Corbin, 132 U. S. 571, 591.
_ Areals dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gurnee v. Patrick Cnty., 137 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1890)…an appeal or writ of error to this court, without reference to the amount of such judgment or decree, but where it did not exceed the sum of $5000, the question of jurisdiction should alone be reviewable. In Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Thouron, 134 U. S. 45, we held that a remanding order was not a final judgment or decree, within the terms of that act, and that this court had no jurisdiction to review it. It is contended, however, that. the order of the Circuit Court here was such a final judgment, b…
-
German Nat'l Bank v. Speckert, 181 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1901)…the same sense as in the prior. statutes which have received interpretation, and these orders to remand were not final judgments or decrees, whatever the ground upon which the Circuit Court proceeded.” Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Thouron (1890) 134 U. S. 45. A similar decision was made in Gurnee v. Patrick County, (1890) 137 U. S. 141. In the case of In re Pennsylvania Co., (1890) 137 U. S. 451, it was held that the acts of 1887 and 1888 took away the remedy by mandamus, as well as that by writ of err…
-
Chicago v. Roberts, 141 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1891)…ds of limitation. It is in effect that no appeal or writ of error shall be allowed from an order to remand in ‘ any cause ’ removed ‘ from any state court into any Circuit Court of the United States.’ ” In. Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Thouron, 134 U. S. 45, 46, 47, Which was an appeal from the order of a Circuit Court remanding the cause, to a state court, it was held that an order remanding a cause from a Circuit Court of the United States to the state court Horn which it was removed is riot a final…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.R. Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 (U.S. 1874)
- Graves v. Corbin, 132 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1890)
- Morey v. Lockhart, 123 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1887)
- Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1880)
- Turner v. Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co., 106 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1882)