BAXTER
v.
BUCHHOLZ-HILL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
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.
Baxter agreed to mark a sunken coal barge with a buoy, but failed to do so, resulting in a tug colliding with and sinking from the wreck; the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company sued Baxter for breach of that duty. The Supreme Court affirmed that a decree dismissing the libel against Baxter "without prejudice" was valid, holding that a lower court retains the authority to modify its opinion and decree to leave open the possibility of a new action, and that the decree itself—rather than any accompanying opinion—controls the legal effect of the judgment.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By
Mr. Justice Holmes. This is an action brought by the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company, defendant in error, against Baxter for failing to use due diligence in locating and marking a sunken coal barge with a buoy, as he had agreed to, bv reason of which failure a tug ran into the wreck and was sunk. It is alleged that the owners of the tug libelled the barge in the admiralty, that the Buchholz-Hill Company answered and filed a petition to bring in Baxter under the 59th Admiralty Rule, that the District Court entércd a decree against the barge but gave costs to Baxter without prejudice to a new action against him; and that the Circuit. Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. The defendant set up the decree dismissing the libel as against him, alleging that the decision was upon the merits-and that the decreé, in so far as it purported to be without prejudice, was not warranted by law. ( The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals both held the plea bad. 142 App. Div. 25. 206 N. Y. 173.
The defendant relies upon the. fact that the Circuit. Court of Appeals in its opinion expressed a decision upon the merits. The Macy, 96 C. C. A. 146. 170 Fed. Rep. 930. But upon motion it so far changed its view as u> exclude such a decision and to leave it open to the company to bring a new action. The matter was still in the breast of the court; it was free to change its opinion if it saw fit, and it was free to do so by changing the deem-without delivering a new opinion to explain what the decree mádé manifest. If it thought, rightly or wrongly, that the collateral question of the present defendant’s liability could not be tried in that case, it properly embodied its decision in the decree. The decree is the dominant act and cannot be given a greater effect than it purports to have and than would be warranted by the opinion that the court finally reached., >
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach (11th Cir. 2021)…ly and emphatically a judicial act, it is the rendition of judgment." 1 Henry C. Black, A Treatise on the Law of Judgments § 106, at 150 n.1 (2d ed. 1902). “The decree," i.e., the judgment, "is the dominant act." Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co., 227 U.S. 637, 638 (1913). So in a contest between, on the one hand, an opinion that to all appearances seems to be an adjudication “on the merits" and, on the other, a judgment dismissing the case "without prejudice," the latter must prevail. Here, for me, is t…
-
The Pac. Express Co. v. Rudman, 234 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1914)…Per Curiam. Judgment reversed [*753] with costs on the authority of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173; Kansas Southern Ry. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 637-652. Mr. Cecil H. Smith and Mr. James L. Minnis for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. Mark McMahon and Mr. H. A. Cunningham for-the defendant in error.…
-
Meloy v. Finbers Realty Co., Inc., 66 F.2d 208 (D.C. Cir. 1933)…re pronounced; the judgment remains so long within the breast of the court, and, as Mr. Justice Holmes puts it, the court may then change its mind even without changing its opinion, except as shown by its changed decree. Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Co., 227 U. S. 637, 33 S. Ct. 402, 57 L. Ed. 681. “It is a general rule of the law that all the judgments, decrees, or other order’s of the courts, however conclusive in their character, are under the control of the court which pronounces them during the term at whic…1 / 2