Pacific Express Co. v. Malin, 131 U.S. 394 (1888)
Syllabus
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
having been made thereto, the court allowed a mandate notwithstanding notice of the motion for the mandate had not been given.
Opinions
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.
Search This Case
