TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Co.

Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company

Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co., 227 U.S. 637 (1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 10, 1913
Docket
No. 882
Judges
Holmes
Citations
227 U.S. 63733 S. Ct. 40257 L. Ed. 6811913 U.S. LEXIS 2339
Syllabus
The decree in a case is the dominant act and cannot be given a greater effect than it purports to haw ana than would be warranted by the opinion that the court finally reached. The fact that a court iri dismissing a libel without prejudice to a new suit expressed a decision on the merits, which it afterwards, o,n motion, excluded, does hot make-the decree as finally entered .a decision on the merits. While a matter is still in its breast, the court may change its opinion and do so by changing the decree.
Summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion — Holmes

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Justice Holmes.

*638 This is an action brought by the Buchholz-Hill Transportation Company, defendant in error, against Baxter for failing to use due diligence in locating and marking a sunken coal barge with a buoy, as he had agreed to, bv reason of which failure a tug ran into the wreck and was sunk. It is alleged that the owners of the tug libelled the barge in the admiralty, that the Buchholz-Hill Company answered and filed a petition to bring in Baxter under the 59th Admiralty Rule, that the District Court entércd a decree against the barge but gave costs to Baxter without prejudice to a new action against him; and that the Circuit. Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. The defendant set up the decree dismissing the libel as against him, alleging that the decision was upon the merits- and that the decreé, in so far as it purported to be without prejudice, was not warranted by law. ( The Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals both held the plea bad. 142 App. Div. 25 . 206 N. Y. 173 .

The defendant relies upon the. fact that the Circuit. Court of Appeals in its opinion expressed a decision upon the merits.

The Macy, 96 C. C. A. 146 . 170 Fed. Rep. 930. But upon motion it so far changed its view as u> exclude such a decision and to leave it open to the company to bring a new action. The matter was still in the breast of the court; it was free to change its opinion if it saw fit, and it was free to do so by changing the deem-without delivering a new opinion to explain what the decree mádé manifest. If it thought, rightly or wrongly, that the collateral question of the present defendant’s liability could not be tried in that case, it properly embodied its decision in the decree. The decree is the dominant act and cannot be given a greater effect than it purports to have and than would be warranted by the opinion that the court finally reached., > Writ of error dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1914: 11915: 21917: 11923: 11933: 11937: 11949: 11952: 11959: 11965: 12021: 12026: 119142026peak 1915 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Meloy v. Finbers Realty Co.66 F.2d 208 (D.C. Cir. 1933)
  2. William E. Matthews, VI v. Antaris Technologies, Inc.; Antaris Technologies, Inc. v. Gym Business Manager, LLCNo. 2:25-cv-00889 (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2026)
  3. Keithley v. Lusk177 S.W. 756 (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)
  4. Atlantic Coast Realty Co. v. Robertson's116 S.E. 476 (Va. 1923)
  5. Garifine v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club148 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1959)
  6. Southern Railway Co. v. Bennett86 S.E. 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)

Most recent

  1. William E. Matthews, VI v. Antaris Technologies, Inc.; Antaris Technologies, Inc. v. Gym Business Manager, LLCNo. 2:25-cv-00889 (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2026)
  2. Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach, FloridaNo. 19-11380 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021)
  3. General Precision, Inc. v. Burnham Van Service, Inc.46 Misc. 2d 586 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1965)
  4. Garifine v. Monmouth Park Jockey Club148 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1959)
  5. Guzzi v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.90 A.2d 23 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
  6. Turck v. Kaywal Realty Co.65 A.2d 757 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
The Macy, 170 F. 930 (2d Cir. 1909) 15
Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co. v. Baxter, 99 N.E. 180 (N.Y. 1912) 9
Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co. v. Baxter, 142 A.D. 25 (1910) 2

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