CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,

v.

OSBORNE; SAME V. JUNOD

Citator

Cited By

• Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054 (Fla. 1929)
  …ial is not in terms or effect a final judgment. Haseltine v. Central Bank, 183 U. S. 130, 22 Sup. Ct. R. 49, 46 L. Ed. 117 and authorities cited. See Bruce v. Tobin, 245 U. S. 18, 38 Sup. Ct. R. 7, 62 L. Ed. 123; Chicago and N. W. Ry. Co. v. Junod, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. R. 281, 36 L. Ed. 1002; Hamilton v. Wolf, 240 U. S. 251, 258. In A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Florida Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 161, 112 So. R. 66, and Southern Utilities Co. v. Palatka, 268 U. S. 232, 45 Sup. Ct. R. 488, 69 L. Ed. 930 and oth…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1897)
  …e Railway Company, 148 U. S. 372, 383. We have declined to issue writs of certiorari in cases where, there being only a matter of private interest, there had been no final judgment in the Court of Appeals. Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Osborne, 146 U. S. 354. On the other hand, in The Three Friends, at the present term, ante, 1, we issued a writ of certiorari in a case appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals before any action had been taken by that court; but this .was in view of the fact that the ques…
• Beasley v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 191 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1903)

Authorities Cited

• McLISH v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1891)
• Meagher v. Minn. Thresher Mfg. Co., 145 U.S. 608 (U.S. 1892)
• Rice v. Sanger, 144 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1892)