MOORE
v.
ROBBINS
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.
In a mortgage foreclosure case, the Illinois Supreme Court initially reversed a lower court's decree foreclosing the mortgage, remanded the case for further proceedings, then upon rehearing affirmed the original foreclosure decree. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ because the state court's decree was not final, as required by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the 1867 amendments limiting federal jurisdiction to final judgments and decrees.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court. The suit was a bill in, equity, filed by Robbins in the Circuit Court of De Witt County to foreclose a mortgage. That court decreed in favor of complainant. The defendants removed the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. There the decree of the lower court was reversed and the case was “ remanded to the Circuit Court for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain.” The ground of reversal does not appear in the record. A rehearing was applied for by the defendants and granted by the court. The case was reheard and the former decree was affirmed. The defendants thereupon prosecuted this writ and are the plaintiffs in error in this court.. Both the Judiciary Act of 1789,* and the amendatory act of 1867,† limit the jurisdiction of this court in this class of cases to final-judgments and decrees. .The decree of the Supreme Court of Illinois before us is not of that character.‡ Writ dismissed. * Section 25, 1 Stat. at Large, 85. † 14 Id. 585. ‡ Brown v. The Union Bank of Florida, 4 Howard, 465; Pepper et al. v. Dunlap et al., 5 Id. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 Id. 426.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U.S. 3 (U.S. 1882)…n uniformly held that a judgment of reversal with leave for further proceedings in the court below cannot be brought here on writ of error. Brown v. Union Bank, 4 How. 465; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 id. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 id. 426; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; McComb v. Knox County, 91 U. S. 1; Baker v. White, 92 id. 176; Davis v. Crouch, 94 id. 514. This clearly is a.judgment of that kind. The highest court.of the State- has decided that the suit may be maintained in the courts of the State. To that ex…
-
Haseltine v. Cent. Bank OF Springfield, 183 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1901)…hat of Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339. This writ of error is therefore dismissed upon the authority of Brown v. Union Bank of Florida, 4 How. 465; Pepper v. Dunlap, 5 How. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 How. 426; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair Co. v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Baker v. White, 92 U. S. 176; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Johnson v Keith, 117 U. S. 199. Dismissed.…
-
Great W. Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1896)…of the State; but the judgment we are called upon to reexamine is the judgment of that court.alone. The judgment of the Supreme Court is one of reversal only. As such, it was not a final judgment. Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 653; Moore v. Robbins, 18 Wall. 588; St. Clair v. Lovingston, 18 Wall. 628. The Common Pleas was not directed to enter a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and carry it into execution, but to proceed with the case according to law. The Supreme Court, so far from putting an end to…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence