Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf — Opinion of the Court

If this should be done, Steinfeld alleges that he has evidence that he wishes to present.
A court is not necessarily precluded from construing a document because the construction is affected by facts and circumstances not open to dispute. But the question now is not whether this court was right or wrong, but what it did. The mandate issued within the memory of present members of the court, and there is no doubt that the court below did what we intended that it should.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf — Opinion of the Court

However it may be as to a statute, the objection seems reasonable when applied to a mandate that has been followed as it was meant, and the following words, among others, show clearly enough that we expressed our intent: 'In our view the facts found show that . . . the subsequent attempt to rescind the action by which the proceeds of the sale of the English group of mines became the property of the Silver Bell Company, and to give the proceeds to Steinfeld, must be held for naught.' 225 U.S. 450. If the territory had not become a state, a judgment would have been ordered.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature