Supreme Court of the United States, 1873

St. Clair County v. Lovingston

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 22, 1873 · Strong

85 U.S. 628; 21 L. Ed. 813; 18 Wall. 628; 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1337 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. G. Koerner, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. W. II. Underwood, contra

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Clement v. Wilson (2d Cir. 1905)
Morgan v. Thompson (8th Cir. 1903)
In re Maryanov (District Court, E.D. New York 1927)
F. E. Davis & Co. v. Illinois-Pacific Glass Co. (Haw. 1914)
Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
Second Street (Pa. 1894)
Taylor v. Matteson (Wis. 1893)
Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co. v. Waikapu Sugar Co. (Haw. 1891)
Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Walsh (Supreme Court of Dakota 1878)
Town of Ohio v. Marcy (Supreme Court of the United States 1873)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the opinion of the court.

The writ of error in this case must be dismissed on the authority of Moore v. Robbins, decided at this term. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State cannot be regarded as a final judgment in the sense in-which the term was used in the Judiciary Acts. No judgment is final which does not terminate .the litigation between the parties to the *629 suit. The issue between the parties may be again tried in the Circuit Court, and another judgment may be recovered, which may be removed to the Supreme Court for revision. Consequently, then, there has been no final determination of the case.

Writ dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.