Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 116 U.S. 402 (1886)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 116 U.S. 402 (1886)Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 116 U.S. 402
Filed January 18, 1886
116 U.S. 402
Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court
Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 116 U.S. 402 (1886) Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 116 U.S. 402 Filed January 18, 1886 116 U.S. 402 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS This case was commenced in the Court of Claims by three petitions, on one of which judgment was rendered against the railroad, and on appeal reversed. See 104 U. S. 104 U.S. 662. After the cases were remanded, they were consolidated and an amended petition filed. A letter, which was not made an exhibit to the amended petition, was attached to the original petition as an exhibit and referred to in the finding of fact by the Court of Claims by reference to the petition, but was not found as a fact in the decision of the case on the amended petition. The railroad company moved for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims requiring it to transmit the record and the finding of fact in the original suit and said letter. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. This motion is denied. The findings of fact on the first trial in the Court of Claims have not under our rules any place in this record. Those findings were set aside when the judgment thereon was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. On this appeal, we consider only the findings at the second trial. The original petition filed in the Court of Claims contained Page 116 U. S. 404 by reference the letter of September 1, 1876. In the amended petition, on which the last trial was had, this letter was omitted. It is not, therefore, any part of the record on this appeal. We decided on the former motion to send the case back for further findings, that it could not now be brought here as part of the evidence, and that it was not the proper subject of a special finding. We see no reason to reconsider that decision.
Search This Case