KIMBALL
v.
EVANS
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
It is clear we have no jurisdiction in this cause. The judgment of the Supreme Court is not the final judgment in the suit. It disposed finally of one of the questions involved in the suit, but not of the suit itself. The suit is still pending in the District Court, and it is not impossible that the parties now complaining may be satisfied with the judgment which they may in the end be able to secure in the State courts. If not, after a final judgment has in fact been rendered by the highest court of the State in which a decision in the suit can be had, the case may be again brought here for a determination of the questions arising upon the petition for removal. But in the present condition of the record the writ must be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleve v. Craven Chem. Co., 18 F.2d 711 (4th Cir. 1927)…ght to make immediate demand for payment upon receipt of Anderson’s cheek, though she was not bound to do feo. When her agent, the Old Town Bank — the collecting-bank being the agent of the holder (Dodge v. Freedman’s Sav. & Trust Co. 93 U. S. 379, [23 L. Ed. 920]) — did make demand, it was only authorized to receive money (Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall. 451 [19 L. Ed. 207]) ; and the acceptance by the collecting agent of anything else rendered it as liable to the holder as though it had collected the cash.” In Nor…
-
Fisher v. Perkins, 122 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1887)…or Court,' which is not the highest court of the state, and it might have been taken to the Court of Appeals for review if the grant of an appeal had been applied for and secured. McComb v. Commissioners of Knox County, 91 U. S. 1; Kimball v. Evans, 93 U. S. 320; Davis v. Crouch, 94 U. S. 514, 517. We are not to assume that an appeal would not have been granted if applied for. The record must show its refusal. The motion to dismiss is gromied.…
-
Anderson v. Pa. Hotel Co., 56 F.2d 980 (5th Cir. 1932)…with an intention to continue its existence and not to cancel it, pay money for it to the collecting agent and the owner receives the amount due him, the transaction is sustained as a purchase. Dodge v. Freedman’s Savings & Trust Co., 93 U. S. 379, 23 L. Ed. 920; Sturgis v. Baker, 43 Or. 236, 72 P. 744. Sureties on the note are still bound. Capwell v. Machon, 21 R. I. 520, 45 A. 259. But where a sale as compared with a payment is prejudicial to the owner’s interest by continuing the burden of the debt sen…
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