Court Opinion

ID: 6606758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:14:09.043683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:13.005686
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CATRON,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court; Mr. Justice MILLER, who had been of counsel in the case, not sitting in it here.
*73In granting the new trial the District Court seems to have been governed by two reasons: First, because the statutes of Iowa prescribed that a second trial may be had of course, in actions brought for the recovery of real estate; and Secondly, because the court below had the power, after the cause was presented there by a mandate from this court and the judgment of reversal entered, to hold that the cause stood on the same footing that it would have done, had the District Court entered the judgment for the defendant before the cause was brought up to this court. And in that case it is true the District Court could have granted a new trial at its discretion.
The 24th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 governs the practice in cases brought up and reviewed in this court. It is bound to give such judgment as the court below ought to have given, and the law directs that a mandate shall be sent down to have the judgment entered as final in the lower courts, when it is . for the defendant below, as here. The District Court had no power to set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court, its authority extending only to executing the mandate.*
We order that a writ of mandamus do issue to the Circuit Court of the District of Iowa, commanding it to vacate and erase the order granting a new trial in the aforesaid cause; and that a judgment be entered in conformity to the mandate of this court.
Order accordingly.

 Ex parte Sibbald, 12 Peters, 492.