Supreme Court of the United States, 1917

Woodworth v. Chesbrough

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 21, 1917 · McKenna

244 U.S. 79; 37 S. Ct. 583; 61 L. Ed. 1005; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1611 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Edward S. Clark, with whom Mr. John C. Weadock and Mr. H. M. Gillett were on the briefs, for plaintiff in error., Mr. Thomas A. E. Weadock for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

30 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Francis X. Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co, Inc. And Penn Trans Co., Inc. (2d Cir. 1976)
United States v. 1160.96 Acres of Land, More or Less (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. 1160.96 Acres of Land (5th Cir. 1970)
Call Carl, Inc. v. BP Oil Corp. (4th Cir. 1977)
Mattox v. News Syndicate Co. (2d Cir. 1949)
Hattway v. Mcmillian (11th Cir. 1990)
Hattaway v. McMillian (11th Cir. 1990)
C&C Construction & Maintenance, Inc. v. Nales-Martinez (District Court, Virgin Islands 2011)
Rangolan v. the County of Nassau (2d Cir. 2004)
Rangolan v. County of Nassau (2d Cir. 2004)
Fiacco v. City Of Rensselaer (2d Cir. 1986)
Barbara Ann Alley and W.H. Alley, Cross-Appellees v. Gubser Development Company, National Gypsum Company and Weyerhaeuser Company, Cross-Appellants (10th Cir. 1986)
Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer (2d Cir. 1986)
Shor-Line Rambler, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp. (7th Cir. 1976)
Shor-Line Rambler, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp. (7th Cir. 1976)
Webb v. Rench (Mo. 1972)
Thomas v. E. J. Korvette, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1971)
David Dorin, Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee and v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Counter-Defendant-Appellant And (7th Cir. 1967)
Louis Casko v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, Louis Casko v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company (7th Cir. 1966)
Movible Offshore Company v. Arthur Lee Ousley, Arthur Lee Ousley v. Movible Offshore Company (5th Cir. 1965)
Butts v. Curtis Publishing Company (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1964)
Lawrence Hill, (90-3923), Cross-Appellant (90-3826) v. Ronald C. Marshall, Terry Morris, (90-3803), Cross-Appellee (6th Cir. 1992)
Alf Reinertsen v. George W. Rogers Construction Corporation (2d Cir. 1975)
Bristol Gas & Electric Co. v. Boy (6th Cir. 1919)

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 McKenna

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a cross writ of error taken by Frank T. Wood-worth, defendant in error in . No. 179, ante, 72, and is presented on the record in that case.,

As stated in the opinion in No. 179, the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment obtained by Woodworth against Chesbrough on the ground that certain amounts computed in the judgment were not sustained by the evidence and, therefore, remanded the case for a new trial. Thereupon Woodworth moved to modify the opinion and judgment in such manner as to permit him to remit such part of it as the court thought was not supported by the evidence and that the judgment, as modified, be affirmed. The motion was denied.

A new trial was had, again resulting in a verdict and judgment for Woodworth. The Court of Appeals again decided that it was excessive but gave Woodworth permission to file a remission of the excess. This he did.

The remittitur recited that plaintiff remits from the judgment the sum of $7,708.56, leaving the amount of the judgment to be $16,005.44. It was stated that it was done in compliance with the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals “for the sole purpose of obtaining the entry of a final judgment herein, and of securing the affirmance of that part of the judgment which is not so remitted, and' is intended to be without prejudice to plaintiff in any cross *81 proceeding hereafter prosecuted by him before the Supreme Court of the United States, which cross proceeding follows and continues to be in connection with any proceeding prosecuted in that court by defendant for the purpose of reviewing said judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals.” .

The Court of Appeals then rendered the following judgment:

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, and was argued by counsel.

“The court having filed its opinion, and defendant in error, Woodworth, having thereupon filed in this court a certified copy of a remittitur filed by him in the court below whereby it appears that the judgment complained of herein has been reduced by the sum of seven thousand seven hundred eight dollars and fifty-six cents ($7,708.56) so that it now stands in the court below as a judgment for sixteen thousand five dollars and forty-four cents ($16,005.44) and costs, entered as of November 22, 1913, and bearing interest from the date at five per cent.

“It is now here ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause, as so reduced; and as so standing after such reduction, be, and the same is hereby affirmed; but that plaintiff in error, Chesbrough, recover the costs of this court.

“The remittitur so filed having contained the clause stating that it was intended to be without prejudice to plaintiff below (Woodworth) in the prosecution by him of a cross writ of error or proceeding in the Supreme Court if defendant below should proceed in that court to review this judgment, and this court being unwilling to embarrass the party, Woodworth, in his attempt to preserve any right of review to which he may be so contingently entitled, approval of such remittitur as a sufficient com *82 pliance with the opinion on file, is not withheld because of the presencé therein of such attempted reservation; but such approval is not to be taken to imply that such right of review can thereafter exist, or that such attempted reservation has any effect to make the remittitur other than absolute and unconditional.”

In assertion of the right attempted to be reserved Wood-worth prosecutes this writ of error.

A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error, and we think it should be granted. Woodworth is in the somewhat anomalous position of having secured a judgment against Chesbrough and yet seeking to retract the condition upon which it was obtained. This he cannot do. Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U. S. 41, 52. He encounters, besides, another obstacle: If the remittitur be disregarded the judgment entered upon it must be disregarded and the original judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals restored, which, not being final, cannot be reviewed.

Dismissed.

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