California National Bank v. Stateler
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Radio Station Wow, Inc. v. Johnson (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
- People of the Territory of Guam v. William E. Kingsbury (9th Cir. 1981)
- Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor, v. Bath Iron Works Corporation (1st Cir. 1988)
- Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Bath Iron Works Corp. (1st Cir. 1988)
- Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Patten (7th Cir. 1930)
- Learned v. Board of Education (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
- Middleton v. Finney (Cal. 1931)
- Cocke v. MacLeod (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
- Batcher v. Hoeppner (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
- Rauer v. Hatfield (9th Cir. 1924)
- Pomper v. Superior Court (Cal. 1923)
- Cutting v. Woodward (9th Cir. 1916)
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Chicago, P. & St. L. Ry. Co. (7th Cir. 1903)
- Edgar Bros. v. State Revenue Commission (Supreme Court of the United States 1938)
- Mississippi Central Railroad v. Smith (Supreme Court of the United States 1935)
- Western Public Service Co. v. City of Mitchell (Supreme Court of the United States 1933)
- Savelle v. State Board of Dental Examiners (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
- Gunder v. Gunder (Cal. 1929)
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1917)
- Leake v. Olivieri (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1915)
- Darden v. Arkansas (Supreme Court of the United States 1906)
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
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
Motion is made to dismiss this writ of error upon the ground that no Federal question is involved in the case.
Without, hoAvever, expressing an opinion upon this, Ave think the case will have to be dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from is not a final order within the decisions of this court. The affidavit of Stateler, which is the basis of this proceeding, sets forth not only the payment of $27,500 in cash by Thompson and Wilson, but avers upon information and belief that there Avas also transferred to the *449 plaintiff, by said defendants, a large block 'of stock belonging to them in the California National Bank, which is the property of its stockholders, and the prayer is for an order turning over to the petitionér the moneys above mentioned and “ all stock and other securities of every sort, nature and description, received by him from defendants Thompson and Wilson in this action.”
- While the opinion of the court deals only with the moneys paid by Thompson and Wilson, the order appealed from directs the trial court to enter the order prayed for “ after making reasonable allowances to the plaintiff Chetwood for his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees in said action as contemplated by law.” This order lacks finality in two particulars. It would still be competent to prove that Chetwood had received the block of stock set up in Stateler’s affidavit, and it would certainly be necessary for Chetwood to prove up his costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees before the amount for which he is ultimately made liable could be ascertained.
The settled rule is that if a superior court makes a decree fixing the liability and rights of the parties, and refers the case to a master or subordinate court for a judicial purpose, sucfi, for instance, as a statement of account upon which a further decree is to be entered, the decree is not final. Craighead v. Wilson, 18 How. 199; Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283; Keystone Manganese & Iron Co. v. Martin, 132 U. S. 91; Lodge v. Twell, 135 U. S. 232; McGourkey v. Toledo and Ohio Central Railway, 146 U. S. 536; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 160 U. S. 374; Hollander v. Fechheimer, 162 U. S. 326.
The writ of error is, therefore, dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.