CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK
v.
STATELER

U.S. | 1898-10-17
No. 37
171 U.S. 447 Supreme Court of the United States (1898) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 43 L. Ed. 233 · 19 S. Ct. 6 · SCDB 1898-002 · 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1616
Cited by 27 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

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error in a dispute involving the California National Bank where the appellate court had affirmed an order requiring a trial court to turn over funds and securities to a petitioner. The Court held that the order was not final because it left unresolved issues—whether the defendant had received a block of stock and what amount the defendant owed for the plaintiff's costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees—that required further proceedings before a final judgment could be entered.

© 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.

Motion is made to dismiss this writ of error upon the ground that no Federal question is involved in the case.

Without, hoAvever, expressing an opinion upon this, Ave think the case will have to be dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order within the decisions of this court. The affidavit of Stateler, which is the basis of this proceeding, sets forth not only the payment of $27,500 in cash by Thompson and Wilson, but avers upon information and belief that there Avas also transferred to the plaintiff, by said defendants, a large block 'of stock belonging to them in the California National Bank, which is the property of its stockholders, and the prayer is for an order turning over to the petitionér the moneys above mentioned and “ all stock and other securities of every sort, nature and description, received by him from defendants Thompson and Wilson in this action.”

- While the opinion of the court deals only with the moneys paid by Thompson and Wilson, the order appealed from directs the trial court to enter the order prayed for “ after making reasonable allowances to the plaintiff Chetwood for his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees in said action as contemplated by law.” This order lacks finality in two particulars. It would still be competent to prove that Chetwood had received the block of stock set up in Stateler’s affidavit, and it would certainly be necessary for Chetwood to prove up his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees before the amount for which he is ultimately made liable could be ascertained.

The settled rule is that if a superior court makes a decree fixing the liability and rights of the parties, and refers the case to a master or subordinate court for a judicial purpose, sucfi, for instance, as a statement of account upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. Craighead 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1945)
    …made below, such rulings cannot be brought here for [*125] review if the State court calls for the ascertainment by a master or a lower State court of an account upon which a further decree is to be entered. See California National Bank v. Stateler, 171 U. S. 447, 449; Boskey, Finality of State Court Judgments under the Federal Judicial Code (1943) 43 Col. L. Rev. 1002, 1009; Robertson and Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (1936) p. 58. Unfortunately, however, the course of our jurisdictional hist…
  • Gulf Ref. Co. of La. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1925)
  • People OF the Territory OF Guam v. Kingsbury, 649 F.2d 740 (9th Cir. 1981)
    …essarily mean that the decision is final for section 1257 purposes. Thus, the Supreme Court has generally refused to review a state appellate decision where further state court proceedings are pending. See, e. g., California Nat'l. Bank v. Stateler, 171 U.S. 447, 449, 19 S.Ct. 6, 7, 43 L.Ed. 233 (1898). The Supreme Court has also held, however, that such decisions are final for section 1257 purposes where the claim on appeal has been finally litigated in a state appellate court and may not be raised on app…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 11 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