ST. CLAIR COUNTY
v.
LOVINGSTON
ST. CLAIR COUNTY
LOVINGSTON
18 Wall. 628
Supreme Court of the United States (1873)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 21 L. Ed. 813 · 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1337 · SCDB 1873-062
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.
The writ of error in this case must be dismissed on the authority of Moore v. Robbins, decided at this term. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State cannot be regarded as a final judgment in the sense in-which the term was used in the Judiciary Acts. No judgment is final which does not terminate .the litigation between the parties to the suit. The issue between the parties may be again tried in the Circuit Court, and another judgment may be recovered, which may be removed to the Supreme Court for revision. Consequently, then, there has been no final determination of the case.
Writ dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haseltine v. Cent. Bank OF Springfield, 183 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1901)…am, 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)…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 the litigation, purposely left it open.…