Central National Bank v. Stevens, 171 U.S. 108 (1898)

U.S. Supreme Court

Central National Bank v. Stevens, 171 U.S. 108 (1898)

Central National Bank v. Stevens

Motion to amend mandate

Submitted May 9, 1998

Decided May 31, 1898

171 U.S. 108

Syllabus

The motion to amend the mandate is denied.

This was a motion to amend the mandate in this case which issued on the judgment reported in 169 U. S. 169 U.S. 432. The motion was as follows:

"Come now the defendants in error and move the court that the annexed mandate be amended so as to command that the judgment below be reversed only in the particulars described in the opinion of the Court. "

Page 171 U. S. 109

U.S. Supreme Court

Central National Bank v. Stevens, 171 U.S. 108 (1898)

Central National Bank v. Stevens

Motion to amend mandate

Submitted May 9, 1998

Decided May 31, 1898

171 U.S. 108

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

The motion to amend the mandate is denied.

This was a motion to amend the mandate in this case which issued on the judgment reported in 169 U. S. 169 U.S. 432. The motion was as follows:

"Come now the defendants in error and move the court that the annexed mandate be amended so as to command that the judgment below be reversed only in the particulars described in the opinion of the Court. "

Page 171 U. S. 109

PER CURIAM.

The motion to amend the mandate in the above case seems to proceed on a misconception of the meaning of the judgment and mandate.

The judgment of this Court does not undertake to affect or reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York except insofar as that judgment sought to restrain the Central National Bank of Boston and the other plaintiffs in error from proceeding under and in accordance with the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, and to compel them to again try in the supreme court of New York matters tried and determined in the circuit court. As between the other parties, the judgment of the supreme court of New York was, of course, left undisturbed, and it is not perceived that the terms of the mandate signify anything else or imply the consequences suggested by counsel.

The motion is denied.