MILWAUKIE AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD COMPANY AND FLEMING, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTTER, SURVIVOR
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 Supreme Court held that a circuit court's decree concerning the calculation of interest and application of receiver funds was a final, appealable order, and denied the appellant's motion for mandamus to vacate the decree, thereby allowing an appeal on the merits regarding potential errors in computing interest or failing to apply received moneys toward interest reduction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court, announcing that the order in question was a decree, and was a final decree, from which any party aggrieved by supposed error in finding the amount of interest, or in omitting to ascertain and apply to the reduction or discharge of interest the amount of moneys in the hands of the receiver or receivers, might appeal. The ruling of this..court in Perkins v. Fourniquet, cited by the appellant’s counsel, was a full and direct sanction to this conclusion.
Motion, denied.
Note.
For greater caution, Mr. Carpenter, before this motion was heard, had moved for a mandamus to vacate the already mentioned order of the Circuit. Court. The-appeal being allowed, that motion'was of course refused; the Chief Justice, in announcing, such refusal, saying that it was made without express ing any opinion as to tbe applicability of that remedy to the case before the court.
[For a further part of' this case, and for the reasons and justification (under the special facts) of the court below, in executing the mandate as it did, see Eailroad Company v. Soutter; infra, p. 610.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma, 334 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1948)…condemnation order was interlocutory. See, however, as to this Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 234; Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U. S. 337. Cf. Wabash and Erie Canal v. Beers, 1 Black 54; Milwaukee and Minnesota R. Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440. Control of production, of course, is the core of state conservation programs. In Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Comm’n, 286 U. S. 210, proration orders limiting production of oil wells to as little as six per cent of capacity were sustained. See p. 229. Cf.…
-
Ex parte THE Union Steamboat Co., 178 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1900)…w, by the fourteenth section of the judiciary act, fairly arises, and a mandamus or other appropriate writs will go,” although an appeal will also sometimes lie. Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328, 330; Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 443. See also Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275; Ex parte Dubuque & Pacific Railroad, 1 Wall. 69; Durant v. Essex Co., 101 U. S. 555; In re Washington & Georgetown R. R. Co., 140 U. S. 91; City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512; In re City Nation…
-
City Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter, 152 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1894)…gives the adverse party notice that the question will be brought before this court, and affords him the opportunity of being prepared to meet it at an early day of the term.” This principle was affirmed in Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440, 443, and recognized in In re Washington da Georgetown Railroad, 140 U. S. 92, 95. The case cited would sustain the present appeal as an appropriate mode for raising the question above stated., if the amount now in dispute was sufficient to give th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence