Case Name: PACIFIC EXPRESS CO. v. MALIN
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1888-11-26
Citations: 131 U.S. 394
Docket Number: No. 1203
Parties: PACIFIC EXPRESS CO. v. MALIN.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
PACIFIC EXPRESS CO. v. MALIN.
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 1203.
Submitted November 19, 1888. —
Decided November 26, 1888.
When the defendant below sues out the writ of error, the matter in dispute here is the judgment rendered against him.
In a case which had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, no opposition having been made thereto, the court allowed a mandate, notwithstanding notice of the motion for the mandate had not been given.
Motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
The defendant in error was plaintiff below, and brought bis action at law against the plaintiff in error in the District Court of Mitchell County, Texas, for an injury done to his property by the defendant in error, and claimed damages in the sum of $5850. An answer was filed by the express company. On the 6th January, 1887, the case was removed on the defendant’s petition to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas, and there entered as No. 24. Certain proceedings were had in that court, and the case being at issue was tried before a jury on the 12th April, 1888, who rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $3000. Judgment was' entered on this verdict. The plaintiff, at the suggestion of the court, entered on it a remittitur of $350, thus reducing the judgment from $3000 to $2650. The writ of error was sued out by the plaintiff in error to reverse this judgment.
Mr. William JELallett Phillips for the motion.
No one opposing.

Opinion:
Per curiam
: This case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
Mr. Phillips, at a later day, moved the court for the issuance of a mandate, and, as cause therefor, he stated that no notice of the motion for the mandate had been served on the opposite party; but that no opposition had been made to the dismissal of the case, and, as the dismissal had been made for want of jurisdiction, there would seem to be no reason why the mandate should be withheld.
Pee cueiam
: Sufficient cause has been shown, and the mandate may issue at once.
Mandate issued.