Colorado Eastern Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.

94 F. 312, 36 C.C.A. 263, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 10, 1899
DocketNo. 1,121
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 94 F. 312 (Colorado Eastern Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Colorado Eastern Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 94 F. 312, 36 C.C.A. 263, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354 (8th Cir. 1899).

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts). The defendant in error moves to dismiss the writ of error upon the ground that the dismissal of a cause for want of prosecution is not subject to review by an appellate court. The motion must be denied. An order of dismissal for want of prosecution and a judgment for costs against plaintiff lu a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. Tunnel Co. v. Pell, 4 Colo. 184; Wood v. Coman, 56 Ala. 283; Dowling v. Polack, 18 Cal. 626. To constitute a Anal judgment, it is not essential that it should be a bar to another suit. It is only when a suit is determined on its merits that it is a bar to ánother action. Hughes v. U. S., 4 Wall. 232. The court below has promulgated the following rule:

“All canses at law and in equity in which no order or progress has heen made and entered of record within one year last past shall be dismissed for want of prosecution, unless upon cause shown during the first twenty days of the May term the court shall otherwise order.”

This is a very proper rule, but, in the absence of such a rule, every court has the power to dismiss a cause for want of prosecution. It is a matter of judicial discretion, and is frequently exercised. Ashley v. May, 5 Ark. 408; Peralta v. Marica, 3 Cal. 185. There is no ground whatever for claiming that this discretion was abused or arbitrarily exercised in this case. Nearly six years had elapsed since the filing of the original petition without any steps being taken by the plain!iff- to bring the cause to trial. The contention that a pro-’ ceeding for condemnation is not a suit is fully, disposed of by the decision in Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 403, where it is held that it is a suit and removable to the federal courts when the necessary diverse citizenship exists, or, as in the case at bar, one of the parties is a federal corporation. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

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

Related

The United States v. Chas. Kurz Co.
396 F.2d 1013 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Edwin M. Reid v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
261 F.2d 700 (Sixth Circuit, 1958)
United States ex rel. Shinn v. Tennessee
74 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Tennessee, 1947)
Partridge v. St. Louis Joint Stock Land Bank
130 F.2d 281 (Eighth Circuit, 1942)
Sweeney v. Anderson
129 F.2d 756 (Tenth Circuit, 1942)
Refior v. Lansing Drop Forge Co.
124 F.2d 440 (Sixth Circuit, 1942)
Hicks v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
115 F.2d 406 (Ninth Circuit, 1940)
Carnegie Nat. Bank v. City of Wolf Point
110 F.2d 569 (Ninth Circuit, 1940)
Cage v. Cage
74 F.2d 377 (Fifth Circuit, 1934)
Ruff v. Gay
67 F.2d 684 (Fifth Circuit, 1933)
Pueblo De Taos v. Archuleta
64 F.2d 807 (Tenth Circuit, 1933)
Zadig v. ætna Ins. Co.
42 F.2d 142 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Cheney v. Boston & Maine Railroad
246 Mass. 502 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co.
257 U.S. 92 (Supreme Court, 1921)
Capital Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Hammett
112 A. 360 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1921)
Raine v. Ennor
158 P. 133 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1916)
Buck v. Felder
208 F. 474 (M.D. Tennessee, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 F. 312, 36 C.C.A. 263, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colorado-eastern-ry-co-v-union-pac-ry-co-ca8-1899.