Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transportation Co.
Citations
- 171 U.S. 138
- 18 S. Ct. 808
- 43 L. Ed. 108
- 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1593
Syllabus
<p>By talcing an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals the Pullman Company did not, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, waive its fight to appeal to this court, and the case being now before this court either on appeal or-by the writ of certiorari, it has jurisdiction.</p> <p>In order to authorize a denial of a plaintiff’s motion to discontinue a suit in equity, there must be some plain legal prejudice to the defendant, other than the mere prospect of future litigation, rendered possible by the discontinuance.</p> <p>Unless there be an obvious violation of a fundamental rule of a court of equity, or 'an abuse of the discretion of the court, the decision of a motion for leave to discontinue will not be reviewed here.</p> <p>The decision of the Circuit Court in defying the motion of the Pullman Company to discontinue its suit was right, as was also its decision permitting the Central Company to file a cross bill.</p> <p>In no way, and through no channels, directly or indirectly, will courts allow an action to be maintained for the recovery of 'property delivered under an illegal contract, where, in order to maintain such recovery, it is necessary to have recourse to that contract; but the right of recovery must rest on a disaffirmance of the contract, and is permitted only because of the desire of courts to do justice, as far as possible to the party who has made payment or delivered property under a void agreement, which in justice he ought to recover, and no recovery will be permitted which will weaken said rule founded upon the principles of public policy.</p> <p>Acting upon those settled principles the court decides:</p> <p>'(1) That the Central Company is entitled to recover from the Pullman Company the value of the property transferred by it to that company Vrhen the lease took effect, with interest, as that property has substantially disappeared, and cannot now be returned;</p> <p>(2) That the value of that property is not to be ascertained from the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that a prosecutor’s office is an “entity” and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office “must be attributed” to the office as a whole
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harlan, Peckham, White
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.