Mower v. Fletcher
Cases that cite this one
26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Ocean Park Development Corp. v. People of Puerto Rico (1st Cir. 1953)
- Buscaglia v. District Court of San Juan (1st Cir. 1944)
- Cinerama, Inc., a New York Corporation v. Sweet Music, S.A., a Swiss Corporation, and Union Bank of Switzerland, a Swiss Corporation (2d Cir. 1973)
- Hudson Distributors, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1964)
- Republic Natural Gas Co. v. Oklahoma (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
- Clark v. Williard (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
- Rumsey v. New York Life Ins. (9th Cir. 1920)
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Manning (Supreme Court of the United States 1902)
- West v. East Coast Cedar Co. (4th Cir. 1902)
- Haseltine v. Central Bank of Springfield (Supreme Court of the United States 1901)
- Department of Banking of Neb. v. Pink (Supreme Court of the United States 1942)
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
- North Carolina Railroad v. Story (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
- France & Canada S. S. Co. v. French Republic (2d Cir. 1922)
- Rio Grande Western Railway Co. v. Stringham (Supreme Court of the United States 1915)
- Gulf & Ship Island Railroad v. Williams (Miss. 1915)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Superior Court (Wash. 1912)
- Hapgood v. Berry (8th Cir. 1907)
- Wabash Railroad v. Tourville (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
- Tourville v. Wabash Railroad (Mo. 1899)
- Mackall v. Willoughby (D.C. Cir. 1895)
- Hall v. Swann (W. Va. 1894)
- Young v. Thrasher (Mo. 1894)
- Whitaker v. Sparkman (Fla. 1892)
- Dartmouth Savings Bank v. School Districts 6 (Supreme Court of Dakota 1889)
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
delivered the opinion of the court. Thesé motions are made oh the ground that the judgments *128 for tbe review of which the writs of error were sued out are not final judgments. The judgment in each case is that the judgment of the State, District 'Court “ be, and the same is hereby,reversed- with costs, with directions to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County-to enter judgment upon the findings for '-the plaintiff as prayed for in his complaint.”
That judgment is final for the purpose's of a writ of error to this court, which terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, so that,-if there should be an affirmance here, the court below would have nothing to do but to execute the judgment it had already rendered. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, and the numerous cases there cited. The judgments in these cases are of that character. The litigation is ended, and the rights of the .parties on the merits have been fully determined. Nothing remains to be done but to require the inferior court to .perform the ministerial act of entering the judgments in that court which have been ordered. This is but carrying the judgment of the Supreme Court which has been rendered into execution. Nothing is left to the judicial discretion of the court below. The cases relied on in support of the motions to dismiss "were all judgments or decrees, of réversal, with leave for/further proceedings in the inferior court. Such judgments are not final, because something yet remains to' be done to complete the litigation.
The motion in each of the cases is overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.