CHICAGO, BURLINGTON AND QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
EDGAR C. WILLIAMS
Per Curiam:
In the opinión of a majority of the court this certificate is essentially the same as that disposed of in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, and it is therefore dismissed' on the authority of that decision.
Mr. Justice Holmes,
dissenting.
When this case was here before I felt doubts, but deferred. to the judgment of the majority, as I think one should,-when it does not seem that an important principle is involved or that' there is some public .advantage to be gained from a statement of the other side. But it seems to me that the present order is a mistake upon an important matter,, and I am unwilling that it should seem to be made by unanimous consent. I think that .such questions are to be encouraged as a mode of disposing of cases in the least cumbersome and most expeditious way. The "f ormer certificate'was thought to invite, a consideration of mixed questions of law and fact. ' However that may have been, the present one puts definite questions of pure law, and I. think.that those questions should be answered. Even if the third should be objected to, the other two are complete in themselves. It is no objection tó a question of law that the case turns upon it. That.is the best of reasons for propounding it.' The only objection is not to deciding the case here but to putting questions that turn upon conclusions from evidence, or-that present a general statement and ask a judgment with regard to unspecified questions of law.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Moody concur in this dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)…54, 55; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 432-435; United States v. Hall, 131 U. S. 50, 52; Cross v. Evans, 167 U. S. 60, 63; United States v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co., 168 U. S. 505, 512; Chicago, B. & Q. Rwy. Co. v. Williams, 205 U. S. 444, 452, 453; 214 U. S. 492; Hallowell v. United States, 209 U. S. 101, 107; The Folmina, 212 U. S. 354, 363; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 215 U. S. 216, 221, 223. But, on the other hand, there is no objection to the submission of a definite and clean-cut questi…
Authorities Cited
- Fourth St. Bank (of Philadelphia) v. Yardley, 165 U.S. 634 (U.S. 1897)
- Chicago v. Williams, 205 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1907)