WHEELER
v.
HARRIS

U.S. | 1871-12-01
13 Wall. 51 Supreme Court of the United States (1871) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 20 L. Ed. 531 · 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1310 · SCDB 1871-078
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
The CHIEF JUSTICE:

The CHIEF JUSTICE:

It is quite true that two appeals are not allowed in the same case on the same question. We must determine which one of the two should be dismissed. It may be that the first appeal was from a decree which might be taken as final, if the second decree had not been rendered.* But it is obvious that the circuit judge did not regard it as final, and it was certaiuly defective. The second decree was rendered, not by inadvertence, but in view of the rendition of the first decree; and, in order to settle the practice in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, that a decree of affirmance, without taxation of costs and without specifying the sum for which it is rendered, is not to be regarded as a final decree.

We think this the better practice, and therefore hold that the first appeal must be

Dismissed as irregular. *

Rubber Company v. Goodyear, 6 Wallace, 153; Silsby v. Foote, 20 Howard, 290.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Richardson v. Green, 130 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1889)
  • N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Ely, 197 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1905)
    …te of the judgment might be correctly given, and that thereupon No. 102 be dismissed, or, in the alternative, that No. 88 be dismissed. We grant the latter application and dismiss No. 88 without prejudice to proceeding in No. 102. Wheeler v. Harris, 13 Wall. 51; Silsby v. Foote, 20 How. 290. The facts on which the State Supreme Court- proceeded are thus stated: “It may be conceded, we think, that the right of way which embraces the land in dispute' was granted to the Northern. Pacific Railroad Company by…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw