California National Bank v. Stateler

Supreme Court

California National Bank v. Stateler

171 U.S. 447, 19 S. Ct. 6, 43 L. Ed. 233, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1616

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 17, 1898

Docket37

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 171 U.S. 447 (California National Bank v. Stateler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

California National Bank v. Stateler, 171 U.S. 447, 19 S. Ct. 6, 43 L. Ed. 233, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1616 (1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brown,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Motion is made to dismiss this writ of error upon the ground that no Federal question is involved in the case.

Without, hoAvever, expressing an opinion upon this, Ave think the case will have to be dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order within the decisions of this court. The affidavit of Stateler, which is the basis of this proceeding, sets forth not only the payment of $27,500 in cash by Thompson and Wilson, but avers upon information and belief that there Avas also transferred to the *449 plaintiff, by said defendants, a large block 'of stock belonging to them in the California National Bank, which is the property of its stockholders, and the prayer is for an order turning over to the petitionér the moneys above mentioned and “ all stock and other securities of every sort, nature and description, received by him from defendants Thompson and Wilson in this action.”

- While the opinion of the court deals only with the moneys paid by Thompson and Wilson, the order appealed from directs the trial court to enter the order prayed for “ after making reasonable allowances to the plaintiff Chetwood for his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees in said action as contemplated by law.” This order lacks finality in two particulars. It would still be competent to prove that Chetwood had received the block of stock set up in Stateler’s affidavit, and it would certainly be necessary for Chetwood to prove up his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees before the amount for which he is ultimately made liable could be ascertained.

The settled rule is that if a superior court makes a decree fixing the liability and rights of the parties, and refers the case to a master or subordinate court for a judicial purpose, sucfi, for instance, as a statement of account upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374; Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326.

The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Brown,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Motion is made to dismiss this writ of error upon the ground that no Federal question is involved in the case.

Without, hoAvever, expressing an opinion upon this, Ave think the case will have to be dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order within the decisions of this court. The affidavit of Stateler, which is the basis of this proceeding, sets forth not only the payment of $27,500 in cash by Thompson and Wilson, but avers upon information and belief that there Avas also transferred to the *449 plaintiff, by said defendants, a large block 'of stock belonging to them in the California National Bank, which is the property of its stockholders, and the prayer is for an order turning over to the petitionér the moneys above mentioned and “ all stock and other securities of every sort, nature and description, received by him from defendants Thompson and Wilson in this action.”

- While the opinion of the court deals only with the moneys paid by Thompson and Wilson, the order appealed from directs the trial court to enter the order prayed for “ after making reasonable allowances to the plaintiff Chetwood for his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees in said action as contemplated by law.” This order lacks finality in two particulars. It would still be competent to prove that Chetwood had received the block of stock set up in Stateler’s affidavit, and it would certainly be necessary for Chetwood to prove up his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees before the amount for which he is ultimately made liable could be ascertained.

The settled rule is that if a superior court makes a decree fixing the liability and rights of the parties, and refers the case to a master or subordinate court for a judicial purpose, sucfi, for instance, as a statement of account upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374; Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326.

The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 U.S. 447, 19 S. Ct. 6, 43 L. Ed. 233, 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-national-bank-v-stateler-scotus-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack