TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moore v. Robbins

Moore v. Robbins, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 588 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 27, 1873
Judges
Swayne
Citations
85 U.S. 58821 L. Ed. 75818 Wall. 5881873 U.S. LEXIS 1331
Syllabus
A decree in a court below, reversing a decree where, on a bill to foreclose a mortgage, a court below it had decreed in favor of the complainant, and “ remanding ” the pase to such inferior court for “ such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain,’’ is not a final decree within either the Judiciary Act of 1789 or the act of 1867 amendatory' of it. A writ taken on a contrary assumption dismissed.
Summary
On motion by Mr. R: E. Williams (the plaintiff in error himself opposing), to dismiss; a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois; the ground of the motion being that no final judgment or decree had been rendered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Swayne

Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case, and delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit was a bill in, equity, filed by Robbins in the Circuit Court of De Witt County to foreclose a mortgage. That court decreed in favor of complainant. The defendants removed the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. There the decree of the lower court was reversed and the case was “ remanded to the Circuit Court for such other and further proceedings as to law and justice shall appertain.” The ground of reversal does not appear in the record. A rehearing was applied for by the defendants and granted by the court. The case was reheard and the former decree was affirmed. The defendants thereupon prosecuted this writ and are the plaintiffs in error in this court..

Both the Judiciary Act of 1789, * and the amendatory act of 1867, † limit the jurisdiction of this court in this class of cases to final-judgments and decrees. .The decree of the Supreme Court of Illinois before us is not of that character.

‡ Writ dismissed.

* Section 25, 1 Stat. at Large, 85.

† 14 Id. 585.

‡ Brown v. The Union Bank of Florida, 4 Howard, 465 ; Pepper et al.

v. Dunlap et al., 5 Id. 51; Tracy v. Holcombe, 24 Id. 426.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1876–1877: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 21902–1903: 11908–1909: 11920–1921: 118762026peak 1900 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morgan v. Thompson124 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1903)
  2. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk276 F. 113 (8th Cir. 1921)
  3. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff106 U.S. 3 (1882)
  4. Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Burnham162 U.S. 339 (1896)
  5. Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield183 U.S. 130 (1901)
  6. International Bank v. Jenkins109 Ill. 219 (1884)

Most recent

  1. Ft. Dodge Portland Cement Corp. v. Monk276 F. 113 (8th Cir. 1921)
  2. Stickney v. Interstate Commerce Commission164 F. 638 (1908)
  3. Morgan v. Thompson124 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1903)
  4. Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield183 U.S. 130 (1901)
  5. Cincinnati Street Railway Co. v. Snell179 U.S. 395 (1900)
  6. Great Western Telegraph Co. v. Burnham162 U.S. 339 (1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list