Case: Alfred Tracy, surviving partner of Edward Tracy, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Holcombe
Abbreviation: Tracy v. Holcombe
Decision Date: 1860-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 24 How. 426
Volume: 65
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Alfred Tracy, surviving partner of Edward Tracy, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Holcombe.
Judges: 
Pages: 426–427

Head Matter:
Alfred Tracy, surviving partner of Edward Tracy, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Holcombe.
Where the judgment of the court below reverses the decision of the inferior court and awards a new trial, it is riot a final judgment from which a writ of error will lie to this court.
This case was brought up by writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. -
The record showed that a suit was brought by Tracy as surviving partner against Holcombe, and on. the 30th of December, 1857, the judgment of the court was entered that he should recover $2,340.71, with costs.
. On the .13th of July, 1859, the Supreme Court.ordered that ‘ “the judgment'of the court below be, in all things, reversed, and a new trial granted.”
On the 8th of Octobér, 1859, a writ of error was issued pursuant to section'third of the act of Congress entitled, “ An act for the admission of Minnesota into the Union;” passed May, 11, 1858, and section eighteen of the act of Congress entitled,
“ An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for. the year ending 30th June, 1859,” passed June 12, 1858.
It was submitted on the record by M". Phillips for the plaintiff in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case has been brought here by a writ of error directed to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota. But upon looking into the transcript, it appears that the judgment which it is proposed to revise is a judgment reversing the decision of the court below, and awarding a new trial. There is, therefore, no final judgment in the case, and the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this court.