WEBSTER COAL AND COKE COMPANY
v.
CASSATT

U.S. | 1907-12-02
No. 283
207 U.S. 181 Supreme Court of the United States (1907) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 52 L. Ed. 160 · 28 S. Ct. 108 · 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1212 · SCDB 1907-017
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

Officers of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sought to appeal an order requiring production of company books and papers in a lawsuit between the Railroad and Webster Coal and Coke Company, though the Railroad itself did not appeal. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the writ of error, holding that the officers lacked standing to appeal because they were merely custodians of the company's property and the interlocutory production order affected only the actual parties to the litigation, not the officers as individuals.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company did not except to the order nor attempt, to prosecute a writ of error therefrom if that were possible; the plaintiffs in error, who were officers of the company, excepted and carried the case up on this writ of error! They were not parties to the case between the Coal Company and the Railroad Company, had no property in the books and papers referred to, were mere custodians as officers, and any rights of theirs were not made to appear to be involved in the disclosures sought. The order as to them was purely interlocutory, not imposing penalty or liability, and not Tnally disposing of an independent proceeding.

•What Mr. Justice Bradley said in Williams v. Morgan, 111 U. S. 684, 699, in holding a decree on intervention appealable, and citing many , cases, was that the-order appealed from there “was final in its nature, and was made in a matter distinct from the general subject of litigation,—a matter by itself, which affected only the parties' to the particular controversy, and those whom-they represented.”

This order affected the plaintiff and defendant in the case itself, and not respondents as individuals at all, and if the court had power to punish disobedience or enforce compliance then the order prior to such action on. the part of the court was clearly interlocutory in the suit. Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117. If the provision of § 724 in respect of disobedience of such an order was exclusive, then, of course, respondents were in no way aggrieved. Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U. S. 599.

Whether the order to produce was valid, and whether it warranted judgment by. default against the defendant company were matters in whiclj plaintiffs in error had no concern. There was here no attachment for contempt, no judgment on default, and no independent and collateral proceeding, the order disposing of which could be considered as a final decree.

Judgment reversed and came remanded with a direction to "dismiss the writ of error.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 237 U.S. 434 (U.S. 1915)
  • Am. Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 380 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1967)
    …ractice ¶ 26.37 [1. — 1] (2d ed. 1966). Thus, before and after Cohen, orders requiring the production of documents were held not “final” and therefore not appealable. For pre-1949 cases, see, e. g., Webster Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 207 U.S. 181, 28 S.Ct. 108, 52 L.Ed. 160 (1907); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 102 F. 2d 702 (3d Cir. 1939) (per curiam); Bank Line, Ltd. v. United States, 163 F. 2d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1947) (dictum). For post-1949 cases, see, e. g., Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. Civic Ce…
  • Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 527 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1999)
    …., United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72, 76 (1988); United States v. Ryan, 402 U. S. 530, 533-534 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 327-330 (1940); Webster Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 207 U. S. 181, 186-187 (1907); Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117, 121 (1906). In 1970, the prerequisites for imposing sanctions were redesigned “to encourage judges to be more alert to abuses occurring in the discovery process.” Advisory Committee’s Note…

Previewing 3 of 5 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