In re Hudson River Electric Co.

N.D. New York

In re Hudson River Electric Co.

184 F. 970, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 383

DecidedJanuary 16, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 184 F. 970 (In re Hudson River Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hudson River Electric Co., 184 F. 970, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 383 (N.D.N.Y. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

RAY, District Judge.

I know of no power in the District Court to limit in any way the effect of the judgment or order of the Circuit Court of Appeals on affirmance of the order of the lower court. The mandate conies down from the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the lower court is bound to obey such mandate and carry it into effect without any limitation whatever. The District Court is a mere instrument to make effectual the mandate sent down. Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co. (C. C.) 53 Fed. 561; Gaines v. Caldwell, 148 U. S. 228, 13 Sup. Ct. 611, 37 L. Ed. 432; Bissell C. S. Co. v. Goshen S. Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 C. C. A. 25; Aspen M. & S. Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. Ed. 986. No order this court makes in any way limits, restricts, or enlarges the right to apply to the Supreme Court for certiorari, or to appeal. If certiorari may be granted by [971]*971the Supreme Court to review the order of the District Court, there must first be a final order.

Motion denied.

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

RAY, District Judge.

I know of no power in the District Court to limit in any way the effect of the judgment or order of the Circuit Court of Appeals on affirmance of the order of the lower court. The mandate conies down from the Circuit Court of Appeals, and the lower court is bound to obey such mandate and carry it into effect without any limitation whatever. The District Court is a mere instrument to make effectual the mandate sent down. Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co. (C. C.) 53 Fed. 561; Gaines v. Caldwell, 148 U. S. 228, 13 Sup. Ct. 611, 37 L. Ed. 432; Bissell C. S. Co. v. Goshen S. Co., 72 Fed. 545, 19 C. C. A. 25; Aspen M. & S. Co. v. Billings, 150 U. S. 31, 14 Sup. Ct. 4, 37 L. Ed. 986. No order this court makes in any way limits, restricts, or enlarges the right to apply to the Supreme Court for certiorari, or to appeal. If certiorari may be granted by [971]*971the Supreme Court to review the order of the District Court, there must first be a final order.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 F. 970, 1911 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hudson-river-electric-co-nynd-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack