Stewart v. Salamon

97 U.S. 361, 24 L. Ed. 1044, 7 Otto 361, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1459
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 18, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by80 cases

This text of 97 U.S. 361 (Stewart v. Salamon) 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
Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361, 24 L. Ed. 1044, 7 Otto 361, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1459 (1878).

Opinions

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

An appeal will not be entertained by this court from a decree [362]*362entered in the circuit or other inferior court, in exact accordance with our mandate upon a previous appeal. Such a decree, when entered, is in effect our decree, and the appeal would be from ourselves to ourselves. If such an appeal is. taken, however, we will, upon the application • of the appellee, examine the decree entered, and if it conforms to the mandate, dismiss the ease with costs. If it does not, the case will be remanded with appropriate directions for the correction of the error. The same rule applies to writs of error. This is not intended to interfere with any remedy the parties may have by mandamus.

This is an appeal from a decree entered upon our mandate. No complaint is made as to its form, and it seems to be in all respects according to our directions. The effort of the appellant was to open the case below, and to obtain leave to file new pleadings, introducing new defences. This- he could not do. The rights of the parties in the subject-matter of the suit were finally determined upon the original appeal, and all that remained for the Circuit Court to do was to enter a decree in accordance with our instructions, and carry it into effect. If in the progress of the execution of the decree, after its entry, either party is aggrieved, he may appeal from the final decree in that behalf; but such an appeal will bring up for re-examination only the proceedings subsequent to the mandate.

The appeal will be dismissed with costs; and it is

So ordered.

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

Related

Auger v. TOWN OF STRAFFORD
972 A.2d 1066 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2009)
Kokesh v. Kokesh
664 P.2d 127 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1983)
Rhodes v. Houston
258 F. Supp. 546 (D. Nebraska, 1966)
George W. Davis v. United States
244 F.2d 308 (Fifth Circuit, 1957)
Perkins v. Perkins
256 S.W.2d 648 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Rydeen v. Collins
23 N.W.2d 590 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1946)
Woodward v. Perkins
171 P.2d 997 (Montana Supreme Court, 1946)
Gaer v. Bank of Baker
122 P.2d 828 (Montana Supreme Court, 1942)
Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneappolis
106 F.2d 891 (Eighth Circuit, 1939)
Peavy-Byrnes Lumber Co. v. Commissioner
31 B.T.A. 985 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Jones v. Box Elder County
67 F.2d 900 (Tenth Circuit, 1933)
Wilson v. United States
65 F.2d 621 (Third Circuit, 1933)
Toll v. Casey
18 P.2d 310 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1932)
Frye v. King County
289 P. 18 (Washington Supreme Court, 1930)
Slusher v. Slusher
261 P. 75 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Wong Wong v. Honolulu Skating Rink, Ltd.
25 Haw. 92 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 U.S. 361, 24 L. Ed. 1044, 7 Otto 361, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-salamon-scotus-1878.