Jump to content

Rice v. Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company

From Wikisource


Rice v. Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company
by Roger B. Taney
Syllabus
706026Rice v. Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company — SyllabusRoger B. Taney
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

62 U.S. 82

Rice  v.  Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company

THIS was a case which was brought before this court from the Territory of Minnesota.

It was before the court at the preceding term, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Reverdy Johnson now moved to revoke the mandate and annul the judgment of dismissal which was entered at the last term.

The motion was as follows:

'This cause was on the calendar of the last term, No. 109. It was then, after argument, dismissed for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the judgment below was not a final one, within the meaning of the act of Congress. A mandate was issued to that effect by the clerk of this court, in due course, but has not as yet been filed in the court below. Since the decision of this court, the clerk of the court below has transmitted to one of the counsel of the defendants in error an amended transcript, by which it appears, as the fact was, that the judgment below was a final one, and that the failure to have had it appear in the first transcript was the error of the clerk or his deputy, by whom that transcript was made up. Under these circumstances, the undersigned, as counsel for the defendants in error, moves the court to revoke the mandate and annul the judgment of dismissal of the last term, and order the case to stand on the calendar, as it would stand, at the present term, if such judgment had not been rendered, but the case had been continued. He makes this motion, because it is important to the interests of the defendants in error that the case be decided at the earliest moment upon its merits, and will, at the hearing of the motion, submit decisions of this court in maintenance of this motion.

'REVERDY JOHNSON,

'Counsel for Defendants in Error.'

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse