Pacific Express Co. v. Malin
131 U.S. 394 (1888)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Pacific Express Co. v. Malin, 131 U.S. 394 (1888)

Pacific Express Co. v. Malin

No. 1203

Submitted November 19, 1888

Decided November 28, 1888

131 U.S. 394

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Syllabus

When the defendant below sues out the writ of error, the matter in dispute here is the judgment rendered against him.

In a case which had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, no opposition

Page 131 U. S. 395

having been made thereto, the court allowed a mandate notwithstanding notice of the motion for the mandate had not been given.

Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The defendant in error was plaintiff below, and brought his action at law against the plaintiff in error in the District Court of Mitchell County, Texas, for an injury done to his property by the defendant in error, and claimed damages in the sum of $5,850. An answer was filed by the express company. On the 6th January, 1887, the case was removed on the defendant's petition to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas, and there entered as No. 24. Certain proceedings were had in that court, and the case, being at issue, was tried before a jury on the 12th April, 1888, who rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $3,000. Judgment was entered on this verdict. The plaintiff at the suggestion of the court, entered on it a remittitur of $350, thus reducing the judgment from $3,000 to $2,650. The writ of error was sued out by the plaintiff in error to reverse this judgment.

PER CURIAM. This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Mr. Phillips, at a later day, moved the court for the issuance of a mandate, and, as cause therefor, he stated that no notice of the motion for the mandate had been served on the opposite party, but that no opposition had been made to the dismissal of the case, and, as the dismissal had been made for want of jurisdiction, there would seem to be no reason why the mandate should be withheld.

PER CURIAM. Sufficient cause has been shown, and the mandate may issue at once.

Mandate issued.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.