Supreme Court of the United States

Woodworth v. Chesbrough

1917 U.S. LEXIS 1611 · 244 U.S. 79 · 37 S. Ct. 583 · 61 L. Ed. 1005

May 21, 1917 · Docket 180

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~165 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
15.2.14 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Final Judgment Rule Law
The court treated the plaintiff’s remittitur, which reduced the judgment, as the basis for a final entry. That acceptance made the judgment final and not subject to further modification or review.
Headnote 2
15.2.3 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Appellate Jurisdiction Law
The remittitur contained language that it was “without prejudice” to any future Supreme Court cross‑writ, but the Court held that such reservation has no legal effect and does not create a surviving right of review.
Headnote 3
15.2.3 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Appellate Jurisdiction Law
The Court noted that Woodworth was in the anomalous position of having secured a reduced judgment yet trying to retract the reservation that made the judgment possible, and such a reversal is not permitted.
Headnote 4
15.2.14 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Final Judgment Rule Law
The Court explained that if the remittitur were disregarded, the reduced judgment would be void and the original appellate judgment, which was not final, could not be reviewed, leading to dismissal of the writ of error.
Headnote 5
15.2.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Cross-Appeal Law
Woodworth filed a remittitur reducing his judgment by $7,708.56. The Court of Appeals accepted the remittitur and entered a judgment of $16,005.44. The court’s order described the remittitur as intended to obtain a final judgment and noted its unconditional character.
Headnote 6
15.2.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Cross-Appeal Law
The remittitur filed by Woodworth contained language that it was ‘without prejudice’ to his right to pursue a cross writ of error before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that such language does not affect the remittitur’s unconditional effect.
Headnote 7
15.2.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Cross-Appeal Law
Woodworth tried to use the same reduced judgment to recover costs while also asserting a right to Supreme Court review that the remittitur was intended to foreclose. The Court said the party could not both keep the judgment and invalidate the condition of its issuance.
Headnote 8
15.2.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Cross-Appeal Law
If the remittitur were ignored, the reduced judgment would be set aside and the prior appellate judgment, which was not final, would be restored. That prior judgment cannot be reviewed, so the Supreme Court cannot entertain the writ.
Headnote 9
15.2.11 Civil Procedure and Courts Law > Appeals, Appellate Procedure, and Review Law > Cross-Appeal Law
The Sixth Circuit treated Woodworth’s remittitur as an unconditional settlement, thereby extinguishing his statutory right to pursue a cross‑writ of error before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed this treatment.

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 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 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 brief

Citation data as of July 26, 2026

Summary

Frank T. Woodworth sued Chesbrough and obtained a monetary judgment in the Eastern District of Michigan, which the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded because part of the award lacked evidentiary support. After a second trial the district court again entered a judgment for Woodworth; the appellate court again found the award excessive but permitted Woodworth to file a remittitur that reduced the judgment by $7,708.56 to $16,005.44, expressly stating that the reduction was “without prejudice” to any cross‐writ of error he might later bring to the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the reduced judgment and held that the “without‐prejudice” clause did not preserve a right of review, making the remittitur “absolute and unconditional.” Chesbrough appealed, and Woodworth filed a cross writ of error challenging the appellate court’s affirmation. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ, reasoning that once a remittitur is accepted as the basis for a final judgment the judgment is final and cannot be revisited, and that Woodworth could not retain the judgment while attempting to nullify the condition under which it was granted. Because the earlier appellate judgment was never final, it could not be the subject of Supreme Court review. Accordingly, the Court held that a remittitur, even with a “without‐prejudice” reservation, creates an unconditional final judgment that extinguishes any statutory right to a subsequent cross‐writ of error.

Updated July 26, 2026

Statement of Facts

Frank T. Woodworth and Chesbrough were the opposing parties in a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division. Woodworth obtained a judgment against Chesbrough for a monetary sum; the precise nature of the underlying claim is not stated in the opinion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed Woodworth’s judgment on the ground that certain amounts awarded were not supported by the evidence and remanded the case for a new trial. After a second trial, the district court again entered a verdict and judgment in Woodworth’s favor. The Court of Appeals again found the judgment excessive, but this time permitted Woodworth to file a remittitur. Woodworth filed a remittitur that reduced the judgment by $7,708.56, leaving a judgment of $16,005.44, and expressly stated that the reduction was made “for the sole purpose of obtaining the entry of a final judgment... without prejudice” to any cross‐writ of error he might later prosecute before the Supreme Court. Chesbrough appealed the reduced judgment to the Supreme Court, and Woodworth filed a cross writ of error challenging the appellate court’s affirmation of the remitted judgment. Woodworth moved to dismiss the writ of error, arguing that he could not both retain the judgment and retract the condition under which it was obtained. The Supreme Court noted that if the remittitur were disregarded, the judgment based upon it would be void and the appellate court’s earlier, non‐final judgment would be restored, leaving nothing for review. The Court therefore dismissed Woodworth’s writ of error. Procedural posture: The original cause of action was a monetary claim by Woodworth against Chesbrough (specific claim undisclosed). Woodworth sought a judgment for the full amount awarded at trial; Chesbrough sought reversal of the excess award. The defenses raised by Chesbrough centered on the lack of evidentiary support for the excess sum and, on appeal, on the propriety of the remittitur. Woodworth’s later defense was that the remittitur, though labeled “without prejudice,” should not preclude review, a position the Court rejected.

Updated July 26, 2026

Procedural History

District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Northern Division) – First Trial
Ruling & award: The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Frank T. Woodworth for an undisclosed monetary sum.
Appeal: Chesbrough appealed, contending that portions of the judgment were not supported by the evidence.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit – First Appeal
Ruling: The Circuit Court reversed Woodworth’s judgment on the ground that certain awarded amounts lacked evidentiary support and remanded the case for a new trial.

District Court – Second Trial
Ruling & award: After the remand, the district court again returned a verdict and judgment for Woodworth (amount not specified).

Sixth Circuit – Second Appeal
Ruling: The appellate court again found the judgment “excessive” but, rather than vacate it, permitted Woodworth to file a remittitur of the excess.

Remittitur Filed by Woodworth
Effect: Woodworth reduced the judgment by $7,708.56, leaving a judgment of $16,005.44, and expressly stated that the reduction was “for the sole purpose of obtaining the entry of a final judgment... without prejudice” to any cross‐writ of error he might later bring before the Supreme Court.

Sixth Circuit – Confirmation of Remitted Judgment
Ruling: The court affirmed the reduced judgment of $16,005.44 and ordered Chesbrough to pay the costs of the appellate proceeding. The court noted that the “without‐prejudice” clause did not preserve a right of review; the remittitur was “absolute and unconditional.”

Supreme Court of the United States – Cross Writ of Error by Woodworth
Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed Woodworth’s writ of error, holding that Woodworth could not both retain the judgment and retract the condition under which it was obtained; if the remittitur were disregarded the judgment would be void and the earlier, non‐final appellate judgment could not be reviewed.

Notes on Incompleteness – The opinion does not disclose the exact monetary amounts awarded at the first and second trial judgments, nor does it specify any other relief (e.g., interest) besides the final $16,005.44 judgment and costs awarded to Chesbrough at the appellate level. All other procedural steps are derived directly from the opinion.

Updated July 26, 2026

Issues

1. Substantive Issue
Does a remittitur that contains a clause stating it is “without prejudice” to a party’s right to file a cross‐writ of error nevertheless bar that party from seeking Supreme Court review of the judgment, rendering the remittitur “absolute and unconditional” and the judgment final? 2. Procedural Issue
Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals err in treating the remittitur as an unconditional settlement that extinguished Woodworth’s statutory right to pursue a cross‐writ of error, thereby improperly preventing appellate review of the judgment?

Updated July 26, 2026

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed Woodworth’s cross writ of error, thereby leaving in force the reduced judgment of $16,005.44 (plus costs) that the Sixth Circuit had affirmed.

Updated July 26, 2026

Holding

Effect of a “without‐prejudice” clause in a remittitur – When a party files a remittitur that reduces a judgment and the court accepts it as the basis for a final judgment, the remittitur is deemed an absolute and unconditional settlement; the inclusion of a “without‐prejudice” reservation does not preserve the party’s right to seek further appellate review of that judgment.

Scope of appellate authority over such remittitur – An appellate court may correctly treat a remittitur accepted as final as terminating the right to file a cross‐writ of error (or any other post‐judgment review) in the Supreme Court; the party cannot later retract the condition under which the final judgment was obtained in order to revive a review that the remittitur was intended to foreclose.

Updated July 26, 2026

Rule of Law

Remittitur creates an absolute, unconditional final judgment – When a party files a remittitur that reduces a judgment and the trial court accepts it as the basis for entry of a final judgment, the remittitur is deemed “absolute and unconditional” and terminates the case; the judgment so entered is final and not subject to further modification. Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 86 (1915).

“Without‐prejudice” language does not preserve appellate rights – A clause in a remittitur stating that the reduction is “without prejudice” to a party’s right to file a cross‐writ of error does not, in law, preserve that right; the remittitur’s effect is the same as if no reservation were made. Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. at 86‐87.

A party cannot retain a judgment while retracting the condition of its issuance – The Supreme Court holds that a litigant cannot both keep the benefits of a judgment obtained through a remittitur and later attempt to nullify the condition (the “without‐prejudice” reservation) under which that judgment was granted. Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. at 87‐88.

Finality of the reduced judgment bars Supreme Court review – Because the remittitur‐reduced judgment is final, the earlier appellate judgment (which was not final) cannot be reviewed; consequently, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a cross‐writ of error challenging that earlier judgment. Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52 (1895).

Updated July 26, 2026

Reasoning

The Court began with the governing principle that a remittitur, once filed by a party and accepted by the trial court as the basis for entry of a final judgment, is “absolute and unconditional”; it terminates the case and creates a judgment that is not subject to further alteration. This rule was applied directly to Woodworth’s remittitur, which reduced the judgment by $7,708.56 and was entered as the final judgment of $16,005.44.

The Court then examined the language of the remittitur, which expressly stated that the reduction was “without prejudice” to Woodworth’s right to file a cross‐writ of error in the Supreme Court. The Court held that such a reservation, even though plainly expressed, does not change the legal effect of the remittitur; the clause is merely a statement of intent and cannot override the rule that the remittitur is unconditional once accepted.

Relying on the Sixth Circuit’s own language, the Court noted that the appellate court had expressly declined to treat the “without‐prejudice” reservation as preserving any right of review. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellate court’s approval of the remittitur was “not to be taken to imply that such right of review can thereafter exist,” reinforcing that the remittitur’s finality is not diminished by the parties’ subjective reservations.

The Court considered the policy of finality in litigation, emphasizing that a party cannot enjoy the benefits of a judgment while simultaneously attempting to undo the condition under which that judgment was granted. Allowing Woodworth to retain the reduced judgment and later retract the “without‐prejudice” condition would create an anomalous situation that undermines the certainty of judgments and the orderly administration of appellate review.

To illustrate the procedural consequence, the Court reasoned that if the remittitur were disregarded, the judgment entered on its basis would be void, and the earlier judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals would be revived. Because that appellate judgment was never final, it could not be the subject of a Supreme Court writ of error, leaving the Court without jurisdiction to entertain Woodworth’s petition.

The Court cited Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52 (1895), as precedent that a judgment not yet final cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This precedent supported the inference that the only viable judgment for review was the one created by the remittitur, which, as established, was no longer reviewable.

Combining these points, the Court concluded that Woodworth’s cross writ of error must be dismissed because the remittitur created a final, unconditional judgment that extinguished any statutory right to further appellate review, and the earlier appellate judgment could not be revived for Supreme Court consideration.

Accordingly, the holding follows: a remittitur containing a “without‐prejudice” reservation does not preserve a party’s right to file a cross‐writ of error; the remittitur is absolute and unconditional, and the resulting judgment is final and beyond Supreme Court review.

Updated July 26, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: No separate opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None — the Court issued a single opinion authored by Justice McKenna with no concurring or dissenting opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion text contains only the majority discussion and contains no references to any Justice joining a separate concurrence or dissent, indicating that the decision was unanimous and unaccompanied by separate opinions.

Updated July 26, 2026

Case Relevance

Woodworth v. Chesbrough stands for the unequivocal rule that once a party files a remittitur and the trial court adopts it as the basis for entry of a final judgment, the remittitur is “absolute and unconditional” and extinguishes any statutory right to a subsequent cross‐writ of error, even when the remittitur contains an express “without‐prejudice” reservation; this holding directly resolves the substantive issue of whether such a reservation can preserve appellate review and the procedural issue of whether a lower appellate court may treat the remittitur as a final settlement, confirming that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error after the reduced judgment becomes final. The rule is applied broadly to any remittitur that is accepted as the operative judgment, regardless of the parties’ subjective intent, and is not limited to the specific facts or the Sixth Circuit’s procedural posture, although it presumes the same procedural framework of a remittitur‐based final judgment. Consequently, the case is a powerful authority for courts and litigants seeking to close a loophole that might allow a party to retain the benefits of a reduced judgment while later resurrecting a right to appellate review, providing a clear, policy‐driven statement of finality; however, it does not address situations where a remittitur is rejected, where a judgment is entered without a remittitur, or where statutory schemes expressly preserve post‐remittitur review, leaving those contexts for separate analysis.

Updated July 26, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "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 ... approval of such remittitur ... 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."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 86‐87 (1915) (page numbers approximated from the excerpt; exact reporter page may vary)
Explanation: This sentence articulates the Court’s core rule that a “without‐prejudice” reservation in a remittitur does not preserve the party’s right to seek further appellate review; the remittitur remains “absolute and unconditional.”

Quoted text: "The remittitur so filed ... is intended to be without prejudice to plaintiff in any cross proceeding hereafter prosecuted by him before the Supreme Court of the United States ..."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 85 (1915) (page number inferred from the location of the remittitur language in the opinion)
Explanation: This is the language of the remittitur itself, showing the parties’ express intent to keep the right to a cross‐writ of error, which the Court later rejects as ineffective.

Quoted text: "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."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 87 (1915) (page number approximated)
Explanation: The Court emphasizes the policy of finality: a litigant may not enjoy the benefits of a reduced judgment while later attempting to undo the condition (the “without‐prejudice” reservation) under which that judgment was granted.

Quoted text: "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."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 88 (1915) (page number approximated)
Explanation: This passage explains why the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the cross‐writ of error: the only judgment that could be reviewed is the one created by the remittitur, and that judgment is no longer reviewable.

Quoted text: "Koenigsberger v. Richmond Silver Mining Co., 158 U.S. 41, 52."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: Woodworth v. Chesbrough, 236 U.S. 81, 88 (1915) (citation appears in the opinion’s discussion)
Explanation: The Court relies on this precedent to support the principle that a judgment not yet final cannot be the subject of a Supreme Court writ of error, reinforcing the finality rule applied to the remittitur‐reduced judgment.

Updated July 26, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Woodworth v. Chesbrough · 236 U.S. 81 (1915)

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Chesbrough v. Woodworth
1917 U.S. LEXIS 1610 · 244 U.S. 72 · 37 S. Ct. 579 · 61 L. Ed. 1000
Chesbrough v. Woodworth
137 C.C.A. 482 · 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1388 · 221 F. 912
Chesbrough v. Woodworth
164 C.C.A. 97 · 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1773 · 251 F. 881
Chesbrough v. Woodworth
116 C.C.A. 465 · 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1437 · 195 F. 875
Chesbrough v. Chesbrough
1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12336 · 395 N.Y.S.2d 254 · 57 A.D.2d 1034
Woodworth v. Woodworth
171 N.E. 431 · 1930 Mass. LEXIS 1107 · 271 Mass. 398

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

May 21, 1917

Docket

180

Precedential status

Published

Woodworth v. Chesbrough

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion