Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/94285/north-carolina-r-co-vs-story
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 18:03:19
Document Index: 792977850

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 237', '§ 237', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 206', '§ 10']

North Carolina R Co Vs Story - Citation 94285 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
North Carolina R. Co. Vs. Story - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/94285
Case Number 268 U.S. 288
north carolina r. co. v. story - 268 u.s. 288 (1925) u.s. supreme court north carolina r. co. v. story, 268 u.s. 288 (1925) north carolina railroad company v. story no. 322 argued april 14, 1925 decided may 25, 1925 268 u.s. 288 certiorari to the supreme court of the state of north carolina syllabus 1. a judgment of a state supreme court affirming the refusal of a lower court to continue a temporary restraining order and to grant a permanent injunction on the petition and answer, and leaving nothing for the lower court to do but dismiss the petition, held a final judgment and reviewable by certiorari under jud.code § 237, as amended september 6, 1916. p. 268 u. s. 291 . 2. an appellate court, upon.....
North Carolina R. Co. v. Story - 268 U.S. 288 (1925)
U.S. Supreme Court North Carolina R. Co. v. Story, 268 U.S. 288 (1925)
1. A judgment of a state supreme court affirming the refusal of a lower court to continue a temporary restraining order and to grant a permanent injunction on the petition and answer, and leaving nothing for the lower court to do but dismiss the petition, held a final judgment and reviewable by certiorari under Jud.Code § 237, as amended September 6, 1916. P. 268 U. S. 291 .
3. A judgment not appealed from, however erroneous, is res judicata. P. 268 U. S. 292 .
5. A decision by a state supreme court that a judgment recovered against a carrier for personal injuries suffered while its railroad was under federal control conclusively established the right to recover a second judgment in an action on the first is not a decision that the first judgment established plaintiff's right to levy execution on the carrier's property notwithstanding § 206(g) of the Transportation Act. P. 268 U. S. 293 .
6. The reasoning and opinion of a court are not res judicata unless the subject matter be definitely disposed by the decree. P. 268 U. S. 294 .
Maggie Barber was killed in North Carolina by a collision between a locomotive of the Southern Railway
The company then brought the present action based on § 206(g) in the Superior Court of Guilford County against Story and the administrator, seeking to enjoin permanently the execution. The defendants, answering, admitted the execution, but pleaded the second judgment as res judicata. The company secured a temporary restraining order and a rule on the defendants to show cause why the temporary order should not be continued and made permanent. On hearing, the motion to continue the order and make it permanent was denied. The court, pending plaintiff's appeal, stayed the execution
Section 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, provides that final judgments of the highest court of a state are subject to review by certiorari. Is this judgment a final judgment? We think it is. In its terms, it affirms the refusal of the lower court to continue the temporary order and to grant a permanent injunction. The Supreme Court based its decision on the facts admitted in the petition and answer. Its judgment was that the previous judgment, as between the parties, was res judicata, estopped the company from resisting execution, and thereby deprived it of any right to either a temporary or permanent injunction. Injunction was the only relief which the company sought or could seek under its petition and prayer. The affirmance of the judgment of the lower court upon the certified opinion of the supreme court left nothing for the Guilford County court to do but to dismiss the petition. Something is said about other issues raised by the administrator in his answer, but the ruling of the supreme court ignored them and disposed of the case in his favor. Such a decree is a final decree. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238 ; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127 ; Commissioners v. Lucas, Treasurer, 93 U. S. 108 ; Flemming v. Roberts, 84 N.C. 532, 539. See also Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; Bronson v. Railroad Company, 2 Black 524; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Crosby v. Buchanan, 23 Wall. 420; Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342. Compare Headman v. Commissioners, 177 N.C. 261.
It is said that the judge of the lower court, to whom the application for the continuance of the temporary injunction
and the granting of a permanent injunction in this case had been referred by the regular judge of Guilford County, was a judge of a court of another county, and had, by the practice of the state, no power to grant a permanent injunction, and so that the appeal from his order denying the application to continue the temporary injunction did not bring to the supreme court for its decision the question of the issue of a permanent injunction. The report of the case in the supreme court shows it as one presenting the question of an application to continue the temporary injunction and to make it permanent, and whatever the power of a judge of a court in another county in North Carolina to allow a permanent injunction in his court, we must assume from the action of the supreme court, and the recital of what was before it, that it intended the Guilford County court, on the coming down of its mandate, to terminate the case by following its opinion. By the ordinary practice in equity as administered in England and this country, an appellate court has the power on appeal from a temporary or interlocutory order or decree to examine the merits of the case if sufficiently shown by the pleadings and the record, and, upon deciding them in favor of the defendant, to dismiss the bill and save both parties the needless expense of further prosecution of the suit. Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U. S. 518 , 165 U. S. 523 -524, and cases cited; Denver v. New York Trust Co., 229 U. S. 123 , 229 U. S. 136 ; Meccano, Ltd. v. John Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136 , 253 U. S. 141 . We think we have jurisdiction.
Coming now to the merits, it may be conceded that the first judgment against the company in favor of the administrator, however erroneous it was in view of the cases of Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554 , and North Carolina Railroad Co. v. Lee, Administrator, 260 U. S. 16 , not having been appealed from, was res judicata. Nor could § 206(g) prevent the second judgment. It was not directed against judgments. It was intended to protect
The court then proceeded to consider § 10 of the Federal Control Act, 40 Stat. 456, and paragraphs A, B, C,
It is well settled that the principle of res judicata is only applicable to the point adjudged, and not to points only collaterally under consideration, or incidentally under cognizance or only to be inferred by arguing from the decree. Hopkins v. Lee, 6 Wheat. 109, 19 U. S. 114 ; Norton v. Larney, 266 U. S. 511 , 266 U. S. 517 . The reasoning and opinion of the court are not res judicata unless the subject matter in issue be definitely disposed of by the decree. Keane v. Fisher, 10 La.Ann. 261; Bridges v. McAlister, 106 Ky. 791; Probate Court v. Williams, 30 R.I. 144; Scottish-American Mortgage Co. v. Bunckley, 88 Miss. 641; Braun v. Wisconsin Rendering Company, 92 Wis. 245; Citizens' Bank of Emporia v. Brigham, 61 Kan. 727.