Supreme Court of the United States, 1905

Schlosser v. Hemphill

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 8, 1905 · Fuller

198 U.S. 173; 25 S. Ct. 654; 49 L. Ed. 1000; 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1118 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Charles A. Clark and Mr. George E. Clarke for plaintiff in error., Mr. E. B. Evans, with whom Mr. H. C. Evans was on the brief, for ’defendants in error.

Cases that cite this one

48 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Cosme v. Marquez (1st Cir. 1938)
Oakland County v. Hazlett (6th Cir. 1937)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Whittaker (9th Cir. 1925)
Clark v. Williard (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
Rumsey v. New York Life Ins. (9th Cir. 1920)
Gospel Army v. Los Angeles (Supreme Court of the United States 1947)
City of Macon v. Herrington (Ga. 1944)
Moran v. Loudoun National Bank (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
Columbus Gas & Fuel Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n (Supreme Court of the United States 1934)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Bunn (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
Savelle v. State Board of Dental Examiners (Supreme Court of the United States 1932)
Exchange Drug Co. v. McNeel (Supreme Court of the United States 1929)
Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota (Supreme Court of the United States 1929)
California Delta Farms, Inc. v. Chinese American Farms, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1929)
M. B. Garris Properties, Inc. v. Martin (Supreme Court of the United States 1928)
United Railways & Electric Co. v. West (Supreme Court of the United States 1928)
O'Mara v. Crampton (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
Sandel v. South Carolina (Supreme Court of the United States 1923)
King County v. Hewitt-Lea Lumber Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Corbett v. South Carolina (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Donley v. Van Horn (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Southern Express Co. v. Terry Packing Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Coffland (Supreme Court of the United States 1920)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Cheek (Supreme Court of the United States 1920)

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. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the -opinion of the tíourt.

By its judgment the Supreme Court of Iowa revérsed the decree of the trial court and remanded, the.cause “fob.further proceedings in’harmony with the opinion.of this court.”

We have heretofore held that a judgment couched in such terms is not final in such a sense as to sustain a writ of error from this court. Haseltine v. Bank, 183 U. S. 130. It was there ruled that ¿he face of the judgment is the test of its finality, and that this court cannot be called on to inquire whether, when á cause is sent back, the defeated party might or might not make a better case.

It is true that in Iowa the Supreme Court hears equity cases on appeal de novó, and the successful party is entitled to a decree in that court, if he moves for it, First National Bank v. Baker, 60 Iowa, 132; but in the present case no such decree was applied for or rendered. Nor did the Supreme Court direct the court below to dismiss plaintiff’s petition, or in terms direct the specific decree to be entered.

And it has been repeatedly held by that court that when a case triable de novo is remanded for judgment in the court below, the parties may be permitted to introduce material evi *176 dence discovered since the original trial, and may amend the pleadings for the purpose of setting up matters materially affecting the merits, subsequently occurring. Sanxey v. Iowa City Glass Company, 68 Iowa, 542; Adams County v. Railroad Company, 44 Iowa, 335; Shorthill v. Ferguson, 47 Iowa, 284; Jones v. Clark, 31 Iowa, 497. In the latter case, the court below, the District Court, refused to .permit amendments, holding, “as a matter of law, that when a chancery case has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and has been there, heard upon its merits, and is. remanded to the District Court, with instructions, as set forth in the procedendo in this cause, the District Court bias no power to grant leave to amend.” But the Supreme Court reversed the District Court, and held that that eourt might, “at any time, in furtherance of justice, andón such terms as may be proper, permit a party to amend, any pleadings or proceedings; Rev. § 2977.”

Doubtless, the conclusions arrived at by the state Supreme Court, and expressed in its opinion, furnish the grounds on which the court below must proceed, when the case goes to a decree there, if no change in. pleadings or proof takes place, but we cannpt say what action might nevertheless be taken, and as no decree was entered in the Supreme Court, and no specific instruction was given to the court below, we think the writ of error cannot be maintained. Assuming, without deciding, that a Federal question was so raised as otherwise to have justified the exercise of our jurisdiction, we can but repeat what we said in Haseltine’s case: “The plaintiffs in the case under consideration could have secured an immediate review by this court, if the court as a part of its judgment of reversal had ordered the Circuit Court to dismiss, their petition, when, under Mower v. Fletcher, they might-have sued out a writ of error at once.”

Writ of- error dismissed.

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