Stewart v. Salamon

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 97 U.S. 361, 24 L. Ed. 1044, 7 Otto 361, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1459, SCDB 1878-020

Decision Date: 1878-10

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361, 24 L. Ed. 1044, 7 Otto 361, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1459, SCDB 1878-020 (1878)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1878


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 70 decisions
70
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

3
21
14
5
1
9
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1880s1890s1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

U.S.10
9th Cir.7
5th Cir.5
D.C. Cir.4
6th Cir.3
7th Cir.3
Most recently cited by10
  • 2021Walid Jammal v. American Family Ins Co 6th Cir.
  • 2019Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Prod., Inc. (In re Deepwater Horizon) 5th Cir.
  • 2009Auger v. Town of Strafford N.H.
  • 1991Claire Rand, Custodian for Brett Rand v. Monsanto Company 7th Cir.
  • 1979Scates v. Arizona Corp. Commission Ariz. Ct. App.
  • 1975Snell v. Ruppert Wyo.
  • 1966Rhodes v. Houston D. Neb.
  • 1966United States ex rel. Townsend v. Ogilvie 7th Cir.
  • 1959Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. 6th Cir.
  • 1957Davis v. United States 5th Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

Stewart v. Salamon.

Attorneys

  • Mr. Philip Phillips in support of the motion.
  • Mr. Alexander H. Stephens and Mr. Charles P. Culver, contra.
majority Mr. Chief Justice Waite

Delivered the opinion of the court.

An appeal will not be entertained by this court from a decree entered in the circuit or other inferior court, in exact accordance with our mandate upon a previous appeal. Such a decree, when entered, is in effect our decree, and the appeal would be from ourselves to ourselves. If such an appeal is. taken, however, we will, upon the application • of the appellee, examine the decree entered, and if it conforms to the mandate, dismiss the ease with costs. If it does not, the case will be remanded with appropriate directions for the correction of the error. The same rule applies to writs of error. This is not intended to interfere with any remedy the parties may have by mandamus.

This is an appeal from a decree entered upon our mandate. No complaint is made as to its form, and it seems to be in all respects according to our directions. The effort of the appellant was to open the case below, and to obtain leave to file new pleadings, introducing new defences. This- he could not do. The rights of the parties in the subject-matter of the suit were finally determined upon the original appeal, and all that remained for the Circuit Court to do was to enter a decree in accordance with our instructions, and carry it into effect. If in the progress of the execution of the decree, after its entry, either party is aggrieved, he may appeal from the final decree in that behalf; but such an appeal will bring up for re-examination only the proceedings subsequent to the mandate.

The appeal will be dismissed with costs; and it is

So ordered.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.