Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Murphy (111 U.S. 488)/Opinion of the Court

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this writ on the ground that it is brought to review an order of the court below refusing a rehearing, and not the final judgment. With this motion he unites another to affirm under section 5, rule 6. If these motions are denied, he asks that the supersedeas may be vacated. The facts are these:

On the twenty-ninth of May, 1883, a judgment was entered by the supreme court of Texas affirming a judgment of the district court of Harrison county. The following entry appears in the record under date of December 21, 1883:

'APPEAL FROM HARRISON.

'The Texas Pacific Railroad Company    }

v.   }

James Murphy }

'(No. 422. Case 1,111.)

'Opinion of the court delivered by Mr. Justice SLAYTON. Mr. Chief Justice WILLIE not sitting in this cause.

'Motion of the appellant for a rehearing in this cause came     on to be heard, and, the same having been considered by the      court, it is ordered that the motion be overruled and the      rehearing refused; that the appellant, the Texas Pacific      Railway Company, pay all the costs of this motion.'

On the third of January, 1884, the chief justice of the state indorsed his allowance on a petition presented to him for a writ of error from this court for a review of the record and proceedings in the suit, properly describing it, 'in which a final judgment was rendered against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company on the twenty-first of December, A. D. 1883.' The writ was issued on the ninth of January, describing the suit and the parties properly, but not giving the date of the judgment. The objection now made is that as the judgment entered on the twenty-first of December was only an order overruling a motion for a rehearing, which is not reviewable here, we have no jurisdiction.

In Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, it was decided that a petition for rehearing, presented in due season and entertained by the court, prevented the original judgment from taking effect as a final judgment, for the purposes of an appeal or writ of error, until the petition was disposed of. This record does not show in express terms when the motion for a rehearing was made, but it was entertained by the court and decided on its merits. The presumption is, therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that it was filed in time to give the court control of the judgment which had been entered, and jurisdiction to enforce any order that might be made. This presumption has not been overcome.

The writ of error as issued is on its face for the review of the final judgment, not of the order refusing a rehearing. The judgment is sufficiently described for the purposes of identification. We are of opinion, therefore, that the judgment as entered on the twenty-ninth of May is properly before us for consideration. The motion to dismiss is overruled.

It was expressly ruled in Brockett v. Brockett, which has been followed in many cases since, that if a petition for rehearing is presented in season and entertained by the court, the time limited for an appeal or writ of error does not begin to run until the petition is disposed of. Slaughter-house Cases, 10 Wall. 289; Memphis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 717. The motion for rehearing in this case was not decided until December 21st, and the writ of error was sued out and served within 60 days thereafter. This was in time to secure the supersedeas. The motion to vacate is therefore overruled.

The questions arising on the merits are not of a character to be disposed of on a motion to affirm. That motion is also denied.