Legal Opinion
Northern Mining & Trading Co. v. Alaska Gold Recovery Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 31, 1927No. 5001PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRudkin, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that orders such as this are not final and cannot be reviewed by writ of error. Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 147 U.S. 337, 13 S.Ct. 356, 37 L.Ed. 194; Southern R. Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 179 U.S. 641, 21 S.Ct. 249, 45 L.Ed. 355. The reason for the rule is obvious: “The case is not to be sent up in fragments by successive writs of error.” Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., supra. This rule should no doubt obtain here, unless there is some statutory provision to the contrary. Section 636 of the Compiled Laws of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Luxton v. North River Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States v. WinslowSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Southern Railway Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Van Dyke v. Midnight Sun Mining & Ditch Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1910
- Abbate v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bridges v. Alaska Housing AuthorityAlaska Supreme Court · 1959
- Bridges v. Alaska Housing AuthorityAlaska Supreme Court · 1959