Steel & Tube Co. of America v. Dingess Rum Coal Co.

Fourth Circuit

Steel & Tube Co. of America v. Dingess Rum Coal Co.

3 F.2d 805, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3811

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1925

DocketNo. 2264

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 3 F.2d 805 (Steel & Tube Co. of America v. Dingess Rum Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steel & Tube Co. of America v. Dingess Rum Coal Co., 3 F.2d 805, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3811 (4th Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The main issue in the District Court was whether the defendant was liable on its contract with the plaintiff for 10 per cent, royalty on coal used and not sold. This issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. The decree fixed the number of tons upon which the royalty was due and the liability of the defendant for 10 per cent, of the market value thereon over $1 a ton. As a necessary preliminary to a final judgment, the decree directed a special master to ascertain the market value of the coal, and, upon the basis oí: that value, report the amount due by the defendant. There has been no report, and no final decree thereon. This court is therefore without jurisdiction; and the appeal must be dismissed. Roswell Beebe et al., v. William Russell, 19 How. 283, 285, 15 L. Ed. 668; Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, 10 S. Ct. 32, 33 L. Ed. 275; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, 10 S. Ct. 745, 34 L. Ed. 153; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central R. Co., 146 U. S. 536, 13 S. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079; Covington v. Covington First National Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 645, 46 L. Ed. [806]*806906; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke Co., 228 U. S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 515, 57 L. Ed. 864; Halfpenny v. Miller, 232 F. 113, 146 C. C. A. 305 (fourth circuit)

Appeal dismissed.

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

WOODS, Circuit Judge.

The main issue in the District Court was whether the defendant was liable on its contract with the plaintiff for 10 per cent, royalty on coal used and not sold. This issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff. The decree fixed the number of tons upon which the royalty was due and the liability of the defendant for 10 per cent, of the market value thereon over $1 a ton. As a necessary preliminary to a final judgment, the decree directed a special master to ascertain the market value of the coal, and, upon the basis oí: that value, report the amount due by the defendant. There has been no report, and no final decree thereon. This court is therefore without jurisdiction; and the appeal must be dismissed. Roswell Beebe et al., v. William Russell, 19 How. 283, 285, 15 L. Ed. 668; Keystone Manganese Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91, 10 S. Ct. 32, 33 L. Ed. 275; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232, 10 S. Ct. 745, 34 L. Ed. 153; McGourkey v. Toledo & Ohio Central R. Co., 146 U. S. 536, 13 S. Ct. 170, 36 L. Ed. 1079; Covington v. Covington First National Bank, 185 U. S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 645, 46 L. Ed. [806]*806906; Rexford v. Brunswick-Balke Co., 228 U. S. 340, 33 S. Ct. 515, 57 L. Ed. 864; Halfpenny v. Miller, 232 F. 113, 146 C. C. A. 305 (fourth circuit)

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F.2d 805, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steel-tube-co-of-america-v-dingess-rum-coal-co-ca4-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack