Case Name: CAHILL v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1956-05-14
Citations: 351 U.S. 183
Docket Number: No. 436
Parties: CAHILL v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO.
Judges: with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Clark join,
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 351
Pages: 183–191

Head Matter:
CAHILL v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO.
No. 436.
Decided May 14, 1956.
William T. Griffin and Herbert Bur stein for movant.
Randolph J. Seifert in opposition.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Respondent filed a motion to recall and amend the judgment in the above-entitled cause, 350 U. S. 898, for the purpose of remanding the cause to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Prior to the filing of this motion, and after the District Court denied an application for a stay of execution, the judgment was satisfied; but petitioner was informed that respondent intended to pursue its remedies notwithstanding payment of the judgment.
The motion of respondent to recall the judgment is granted. It is ordered that the certified copy of the judg ment sent to the District Court be recalled and that the judgment be amended so as to provide for a remand of the cause to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336, 350 U. S. 811; Rule 58 (4), Supreme Court Rules.
We deem our original order erroneous and recall it in the interest of fairness. Similar relief was requested by respondent in a petition for rehearing, denied in 350 U. S. 943. Rule 58 (4) bars consecutive and out-of-time petitions for rehearing. The Boudoin case, however, concerned a motion to recall a judgment that asked for almost identical relief. Yet, if it had been considered a petition for rehearing, it was filed out of time. The grant of the motion in the Boudoin case shows that Rule 58 (4) does not prohibit motions to correct this kind of error.
Compare as to mootness, Bakery Drivers Union v. Wagshal, 333 U. S. 437, 442; Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222, 224. The problems that may arise from demand for repayment are not before us.