Compliance with a mandate of this Court which leaves nothing to
the judgment or discretion of the court below may be enforced by
mandamus. This Court cannot entertain an appeal from a judgment
executing its mandate if the value of the matter in dispute upon
the appeal is less than $5,000.
No appeal lies from a decree for costs.
In
City National Bank of Fort Worth v. Hunter,
129 U. S. 557,
129 U. S. 5796,
will be found a full history of the litigation between the parties
to the present appeal. The final decree was reversed, with costs,
and the case was remanded, with directions to proceed in conformity
with the opinion of this Court. After the mandate and opinion of
this Court had been filed in the court below, the cause was again
heard, and it was, among other things, adjudged:
"That said complainants, R. D. Hunter, A. G. Evans, and R. P.
Buel, do have and recover of and from the defendants, the City
National Bank of Fort Worth, the sum of twelve thousand nine
hundred and eighty-four and 85/100 (12,984.85) dollars, together
with interest thereon from this date at the rate of eight percent
per annum. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that all
costs accrued in this cause up to September 30, 1881, be, and the
same are hereby, adjudged against said complainants, R. D. Hunter,
A. G. Evans, and R. P. Buel, and for which let
Page 152 U. S. 513
execution issue; and, as the costs of the Supreme Court have
been allowed against said complainants, all other costs incurred
herein, which have not been otherwise adjudged, be, and the same
are hereby, adjudged against said defendant, the City National Bank
of Fort Worth."
From this decree the present appeal was prosecuted by the bank.
The errors assigned are: 1. the court gave interest on the
plaintiffs' portion of the fund to be divided; 2. costs were
awarded against the defendant bank.
Page 152 U. S. 514
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
1. It is contended that the decree below, so far as it included
interest in favor of the appellees, was not in conformity with the
opinion of this Court, and for that reason should be reversed. The
claim is that such interest was "nearly or quite $4,000." In that
view, has this Court jurisdiction, upon appeal, to review the last
decree?
In support of our jurisdiction, counsel rely upon
Perkins v.
Fourniquet, 14 How. 328. In that case, it was
claimed that the decree appealed from exceeded what was allowed
upon a previous appeal by a sum larger than was necessary to give
this Court jurisdiction, and the question arose whether the alleged
error could be reached by an appeal from the last decree. Chief
Justice Taney, speaking for this Court, said:
"This objection to the form of proceeding involves nothing more
than a question of practice. The mandate from this Court left
nothing to the judgment and discretion of the circuit
Page 152 U. S. 515
court, but directed it to carry into execution the decree of
this Court, which was recited in the mandate. And if the decree of
this Court has been misunderstood or misconstrued by the court
below to the injury of either party, we see no valid objection to
an appeal to this Court in order to have the error corrected. The
question is merely as to the form of proceeding which this Court
should adopt to enforce the execution of its own mandate in the
court below. The subject might without doubt be brought before us
upon motion and a mandamus issued to compel its execution. But an
appeal from the decision of the court below is equally convenient
and suitable, and perhaps more so in some cases, as it gives the
adverse party notice that the question will be brought before this
Court and affords him the opportunity of being prepared to meet it
at an early day of the term."
This principle was affirmed in
Milwaukee
& Minnesota Railroad v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440,
69 U. S. 443,
and recognized in
In re Washington & Georgetown
Railroad, 140 U. S. 92,
140 U. S.
95.
The case cited would sustain the present appeal as an
appropriate mode for raising the question above stated if the
amount now in dispute was sufficient to give this Court
jurisdiction to review the last decree. Under the statutes
regulating the jurisdiction of this Court at the date of the
decision in
Perkins v. Fourniquet, the amount there in
dispute was sufficient for an appeal. But that case does not
sustain the broad proposition that, without reference to the value
of the matter in dispute, an appeal will lie from a decree simply
upon the ground that it is in violation of or a departure from the
mandate of this Court. While compliance with a mandate of this
Court which leaves nothing to the judgment or discretion of the
court below and simply requires the execution of our decree may be
enforced by mandamus without regard to the value of the matter in
dispute, we cannot entertain an appeal if the value of the matter
in dispute upon such appeal is less than $5,000.
Nashua &
Lowell Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 51 F.
929.
2. If the sum in dispute on this appeal was sufficient to give
us jurisdiction, we could consider the question of costs
Page 152 U. S. 516
referred to in the second assignment of error; but, as the
appeal in respect to interest must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, the appeal in respect to costs must also be
dismissed. No appeal lies from a mere decree for costs.
Canter v. American Ins.
Co., 3 Pet. 307,
28 U. S. 319;
Wood v. Weimar, 104 U. S. 786;
Paper Bag Cases, 105 U. S. 766.
The appeal is dismissed.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, not having been a member of the court when
this case was argued, took no part in its decision.
