UNION MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
KIRCHOFF

U.S. | 1896-01-06
No. 132
160 U.S. 374 Supreme Court of the United States (1896) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 40 L. Ed. 461 · 16 S. Ct. 318 · SCDB 1895-082 · 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2108
Cited by 15 cases

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.

Synopsis

Union Mutual Life Insurance Company sought review of an Illinois Supreme Court decree that had affirmed an appellate court decision reversing a circuit court judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the decree was not final, as it remanded the case to the lower court for additional judicial proceedings rather than resolving the matter conclusively.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
.Mr. Justice Brown,

.Mr. Justice Brown,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

From the briefs of counsel and the reports of the case in the-Illinois reports, we are informed that, upon the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the decree of the appellate court, the case was remanded to the circuit court of Cook County, where an accounting was taken, and a decree entered in accordance with the opinion of the appellate - court. From that decree the company is said to have appealed to the appellate court of the first district, which affirmed the decree of the' circuit court. 51 Illinois App. 67. Whereupon the insurance company again appealed to the Supreme Court of the State, which again affirmed the decision of the appellate court. 149 Illinois, 536. But as the writ of error from this court was not taken to reverse that decree, but to reverse the first decree of the Supreme Court, affirming the decree of the appellate court, we are concerned only with the questions arising upon that decree, and more particularly with its finality. It will he observed that it simply affirms the decree of the appellate court, but upon reference to that decree, we find that it reverses the decree of the circuit court of Cook County, “ with directions to that court to enter an order and decree in conformity with the opinion filed herein.” As this opinion was not sent up with the record, we have no means of knowing judicially what it was, though we are informed by the briefs' of counsel that an accounting was ordered and taken in the circuit court.

Obviously the decree, to review which this writ of error was sued out, was not a final decree. The finality of decrees is a subject which has been so much discussed in the decisions of this court that it is useless to do more than to cite the cases of Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, and McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536, wherein most of the prior cases are reviewed.

This case is not one for nice distinctions, since the rule is well nigh universal that, if the case be remanded by the appellate court to the court below for further judicial proceedings, in conformity with the opinion of the appellate court, the decree is not final. Especially is this the case when the opinion, to which the new decree is required to conform, does not appear. Brown v. Baxter, 146 U. S. 619; Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Johnson v. Keith, 117 U. S. 199; Rice v. Sanger, 144 U. S. 197; Meagher v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co., 145 U. S. 608; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U. S. 245; Werner v. Charleston, 151 U. S. 360.

The writ of error is, therefore,

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gulf Ref. Co. of La. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1925)
  • Cal. Nat'l Bank v. Stateler, 171 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1898)
    …aighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374; Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326. The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.…
  • Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 169 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1898)
    …the foregoing statement, délivered the opinion of-the court. When this case was before us on the prior writ of error we were obliged to dismiss the writ because the judgment sought to be reviewed was not final. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374. And the question whether, had this been otherwise, the jurisdiction could have been maintained, was necessarily not considered. That inquiry, however, now meets us on the threshold, as in order to invoke our jurisdiction on the ground of the denial…

Previewing 3 of 8 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