HASELTINE
v.
CENTRAL BANK OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI (NO. 1)

U.S. | 1901-12-02
No. 62
183 U.S. 130 Supreme Court of the United States (1901) Caution
Also reported at: 46 L. Ed. 117 · 22 S. Ct. 49 · SCDB 1901-012 · 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1259
Cited by 97 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

In this jurisdictional case, the Supreme Court determined whether it could review a state court judgment that reversed and remanded a case to the lower court for further proceedings. The Court held that a judgment of reversal and remand is not final and therefore not subject to a writ of error, establishing that the face of the judgment itself must be the test of finality rather than speculation about the case's ultimate outcome.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brown

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court.

The motion to dismiss must be granted. We have frequently held that a judgment reversing that of the court below, and remanding the case for further proceedings, is not one to which a writ of error will lie. The case of Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127, is not in point, as the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State remanded that case to the inferior court with an order to enter a specified judgment, nothing being left to the judicial discretion of the court below. A like ruling was made in Atherton v. Fowler, 91 U. S. 143, and Commissioners of Tippecanoe County v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108.

While the judgment may dispose of the case as presented, it is impossible to anticipate its ultimate disposition. It may be voluntarily discontinued, or it may happen that the defeated party may amend his pleading by supplying some discovered defect, and go to trial upon new evidence. To determine whether, in a particular cáse, this may or may not be done, might involve an examination, not Only of the record, but even of the evidence in the court of original jurisdiction, and lead to inquiries with regard to the actual final disposition of the case by the Supreme Court, which it might be difficult to answer. We have, therefore, always made the face of the' judgment the test of its finality, and refused to inquire whether, in case of a new trial, the defeated party would stand in a position to make a better case. The plaintiffs in the casejunder consideration could have secured an immediate review by this court, if the court as a part of its judgment of reversal had ordered the Circuit Court to dismiss their petition, when, under Mower v. Fletcher, they might have sued out a writ of error at once.

McComb v. Knox County Commissioners, 91 U. S. 1, is a case in point.. That was a writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Ohio. The case had been taken to the Supreme Court of the State, where the judgment of the Common Pleas was reversed for error in sustaining a demurrer to the replies, and overruling that to the answer. Upon suggestion by defendant that he might ask leave to amend his answer, the case was remanded “ for further proceedings according to law.” Upon the mandate being filed, defendant did not ask leave to amend his answer, but elected to rejy upon his defence already made. Thereupon the court gave judgment against him, and he sued out a writ of érror from this court. We held that the judgment of the Supreme Court, being one of reversal only, was not final; that so far from putting an end to the litigation, it purposely left it open; that the law of the case upon the pleadings as they stood was settled, but ample power was left in the Common-Pleas to permit the parties to make a new case by amendment; that the final judgment was that of the Common Pleas; that “ it may have been the necessary result of the decision of the question presented for its determination; but it is none the less, on that account, the act of the Common Pleas,” and was, when rendered, open to review by the Supreme Court. The writ was dismissed. A similar case is that of Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339.

This writ of error is therefore dismissed upon the authority of Brown v. Union Bank of Florida, 4 How. 465; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Johnson v Keith, 117 U. S. 199.

Dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (46 total)

  • Waddell v. McAllister, 97 Fla. 1054 (Fla. 1929)
    …damages for the loss of a boat. In such a case certiorari may not be issued except after a final adjudication of the cause; and ordinarily a judgment of reversal for á new trial 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.…
    1 / 2
  • Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1910)
  • Gulf Ref. Co. of La. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1925)
    …s should be dismissed because the court of appeals remanded the cases “ for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this court.” The general rule established by many decisions, of which Haseltine v. Cent. Bk. of Springfield (No. 1), 183 U. S. 130, is an. example, is that the face of the judgment is the test of its finality and that by this test a judgment of reversal remanding the cause for further proceedings. in conformity with the opinion of the court ordiriarily is not, final. But the di…

Previewing 3 of 46 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (14 total)

View all 14 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw