Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

117 U.S. 199

Johnson v. Keith

Supreme Court of the United States

Submitted March 2, 1886.

Decided March 8, 1886.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1886-03-08

ERROR ’ TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF. MISSOURI. This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error “ because the •record and mandate of the said Supreme Oourt of Missouri in this cause, brought up by such writ of error, shows on the face thereof that no final judgment' or decree was rendered or made in this cause by said Supreme Oourt of Missouri; but on the ' contrary thereof, it -appears from such record and mandate, that the judgment and decree of the inferior court, to…

2 counsel of record

Relies on Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff · Akers v. Akers · Houston v. Moore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 9–0 · Decided 1886-03-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1983 · most notably Central Land Co of West Virginia v. Laidley (1895), Almenares v. Wyman (1971)

20 federal appellate · 3 district ·

12018861890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ERROR ’ TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF. MISSOURI.

¶2A judgment of reversal in a State court, accompanied by an order remanding the cause for a retrial, is not a final judgment for the purpose of a writ of error to this court.

¶3Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 4, affirmed.

¶4This was a motion to dismiss a writ of error “ because the •record and mandate of the said Supreme Oourt of Missouri in this cause, brought up by such writ of error, shows on the face thereof that no final judgment' or decree was rendered or made in this cause by said Supreme Oourt of Missouri; but on the ' contrary thereof, it -appears from such record and mandate, that the judgment and decree of the inferior court, to wit: The said Circuit Oourt of Lafayette County, Missouri, was, by such Supreme Court of Missouri, reversed; and that this cause was by such Supreme Court of Missouri remanded to the said ■ Circuit Court of Lafayette County, Missouri, for further proceedings to be had therein, in conformitjr with the opinion of said Supreme Court of Missouri in this cause delivered. Such writ of error was prematurely and improvidently sued out and issued.”

¶5Mr. F. M. Cockrell for the motion.

¶6No one opposing.

¶7Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9This motion is granted. A judgment of reversal, accompanied by an order remanding the cause for a retrial, is not a final judgment for the purposes of a writ of error to this court. Houston v. Moore, 3 Wheat. 433; Bostwick v. Brinkerkoff, 106 U. S. 4, and cases there cited.

¶10Motion granted.

/117/us/199 · .json · Public domain