Supreme Court of the United States, 1879

Railway Co. v. Twombly

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 15, 1879 · Waite

100 U.S. 78 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John P. Usher and Mr. Samuel 'Shellabarger for the plaintiff in error., Mr. J. Q. Charles, contra.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
Railway Company v. Twombly (Supreme Court of the United States 1879)
Morse-Starrett Products Co. v. Steccone (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1949)
Huron Holding Corp. v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1941)
Smith Engineering Co. v. Pray (9th Cir. 1932)
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Richmond Guano Co. (4th Cir. 1924)
Duart v. Simmons (Mass. 1920)
United Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
Ex parte Cohen (Or. 1914)
United States v. Mitchell (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon 1908)
Ransom v. City of Pierre (8th Cir. 1900)
McClellan v. Pyeatt (8th Cir. 1892)
Goodrich v. Wilson (Mass. 1883)

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 of the Court

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think that the court below was right in holding that the bill of exceptions only presented for review the refusal of. the District Court, on the motion for a new trial, to set aside the verdict because not sustained by the evidence. It is well settled that such a question cannot be re-examined here on a writ of error. Marine Insurance Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch, 187; Barr v. Gtratz's Heirs, 4 Wheat. 213; Mullhall v. Keenan, 18 Wall. 342.

Neither can we, as is asked, send the case back to the court below, with instructions to enter a judgment of nonsuit, because since the judgment below, and while this writ of error has been pending, the statute authorizing the action has been repealed. A writ of error to' this court does not vacate the judgment below. That continues in force until reversed, which is only done when errors are found in the record on which it rests, and which were committed previous to its rendition. Here there are no such errors. All we can do, therefore, is to affirm the judgment, and send'our mandate to that effect to the court below.

Judgment affirmed.

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