St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad v. Southern Express Co.
U.S.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025NAVAJO NATION v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2024Umialik Insurance Company v. Safet Miftari, Umialik Insurance Company v. Safet Miftari Alaska
- 2024Korean v. Dow Silicones Corp. 6th Cir.
- 2023State of Tennessee v. Joseph Gevedon Tenn.
- 2023IRVING H. PICARD, Trustee for the Substantively Co v. Sage Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
- 2022JoAnn Britt v. Louis DeJoy 4th Cir.
- 2020Bank of America v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas - Kansas City 10th Cir. BAP
- 2020Woodstream Falls Condominium v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado 10th Cir. BAP
- 2018Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC 10th Cir.
- 2015Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Reliable Limousine Service, LLC D.C. Cir.
Cites 2 cases
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO. v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.
Attorneys
- Mr.. John F. Dillon and Mr. Wager.Swayne filed a brief for the railroad company,
- Mr. Brogdhead and Mr. Hceussler filed a brief for the same,
- . Mr: Glover, Mr. Shepley, Mr. S. M. Breckenridge; Mr. Clarence A. Seward, and Mr. F. F. Whitfield filed briefs for the motion, contending,
Delivered-the opinion of the court. After stating the facts in the language above cited, he continued : ’
As Ave have had occasion to say at the present term, in Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, and Grant v. Phœnix Insurance Company, 106 U. S. 429, a decree is final, for the purposes- of an appeal to this, court, Avhen it terminates the litigation betAveen the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. Under this rule we think the present decree is final. The suit was brought to compel the railway company to do the express' company’s business. . The controversy was about the right of the express company to require this to be done on the payment of lawful charges. It was no part of the object of the suit to have it definitely settled "what these charges should be for all time. " The point was to establish the liability of the railway company to carry. The decree requires the carriage, and fixes the compensation to be paid. It adjudges costs against the railway company, and awards execution. - Nothing more remains to be done by the court to dispose of the case. Inasmuch as the rales properly chargeable for transportation vary according to circumstances, and what was reasonable when the decree was rendered may not always continue to be so, leave is given the parties to apply for a modification of Avhat has been ordered in that particular if they, or • either of them, shall desire to do so. In effect the decree requires the railway company to carry for reasonable rates, and fixes for the time being the maximum of' Avhat will be reasonable.
The controversy Avhich the express company has'had referred to the master, about the compensation to be paid for the transportation during the pendency of' the suit, does not enter into, the merits of the case. All such matters relate to the administration of the cause, and the accounts to be settled under the present order are of the same general character as those of a receiver who holds property awaiting the final disposition of a suit. They are incidents of the main- litigation, but-not neces-' sarily a part of it. The supplemental order¿ made after the decree," relates only to the settlement of the accounts which ac-' crued pending the suit.
The motion to dismiss’is denied.