EX PARTE DUBUQUE AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
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.
The Dubuque and Pacific Railroad appealed a district court decision that had granted a new trial, which the Supreme Court reversed and remanded with a mandate requiring final judgment for the defendant. The Supreme Court held that upon remand, the district court lacked authority to grant a new trial and could only execute the Supreme Court's mandate by entering judgment as directed, since the Judiciary Act of 1789 required the lower court to enter final judgment conforming to the appellate court's decision rather than revisit the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice CATRON,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court; Mr. Justice MILLER, who had been of counsel in the case, not sitting in it here. In granting the new trial the District Court seems to have been governed by two reasons: First, because the statutes of Iowa prescribed that a second trial may be had of course, in actions brought for the recovery of real estate; and Secondly, because the court below had the power, after the cause was presented there by a mandate from this court and the judgment of reversal entered, to hold that the cause stood on the same footing that it would have done, had the District Court entered the judgment for the defendant before the cause was brought up to this court. And in that case it is true the District Court could have granted a new trial at its discretion.
The 24th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 governs the practice in cases brought up and reviewed in this court. It is bound to give such judgment as the court below ought to have given, and the law directs that a mandate shall be sent down to have the judgment entered as final in the lower courts, when it is . for the defendant below, as here. The District Court had no power to set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court, its authority extending only to executing the mandate.*
We order that a writ of mandamus do issue to the Circuit Court of the District of Iowa, commanding it to vacate and erase the order granting a new trial in the aforesaid cause; and that a judgment be entered in conformity to the mandate of this court.
Order accordingly.
*
Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Peters, 492.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895)…counting, had been brought to and decided by this court upon the appeal, as in the cases-principally relied on by the petitioner. Stewart v. Salomon, 94 U. S. 434, and 97 U. S. 361; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U. S. 228; Ex Parte Dubugue & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; In re Washington & Georgetown Railroad, 140 U. S. 91. It must be remembered, however, that jio question, once considered and decided by this court,- can be reexamined at any subsequent stage of the same case. Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464; Sibbald…
-
In re Potts, 166 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1897)…e of this court, to grant a new trial, a rehearing or a review, or to permit new defences on the merits to be introduced by amendment of the answer. Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 339; Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547 ; Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69 ; Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U. S. 228. In this respect, a motion for a new trial or a petition for a rehearing stands upon the same ground as a bill of review, as to which Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for this court, in S…
-
Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1893)…bury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650, 671, 672. It has been distinctly held that a final judgment of this court is conclusive on the parties, and cannot be reexamined. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 355. In Ex parte Dubuque de Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69, 73, a case -where this court had reversed a judgment of a Circuit Court and remanded the cause with a mandate to that court to enter judgment for the other party, and the court below had thereafter received affidavits showing new facts and granted…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence