« AnteriorContinuar »
No District Court of the United States has the power to issue a writ of prohibition except when necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction in some matter previously before it. $0
It seems that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has the power to issue writs of prohibition directed to inferior courts and to public boards and officers acting in a quasi judicial capacity within its territorial jurisdiction.21 It is doubtful whether any court has the power to issue a writ of prohibition against a court-martial.22
Where the court against which the .writ is sought has clearly no jurisdiction of the suit or prosecution originally issued before it or of some collateral matter arising therein, and the defendant has objected to its jurisdiction at the outset, and has no other remedy; the writ of prohibition should issue, 23 and a refusal to grant a writ, where all the proceedings appear of record, may be reviewed by a writ of error. 24
Where the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the grant or refusal of the writ is discretionary ; 25 and it is not obligatory where the case has gone to sentence and the want of jurisdiction does not appear upon the face of the proceedings.26
20 U. S. R. S., $ 716; Re Bininger, 7 Blatchf. 159.
21 See argument of Messrs. Jeff. Chandler and Eppa Houston, in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; Act of Feb. 27, 1827, ch. 69, $ 2 (19 St. at L. 253); U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 L. ed. 167; Price v. State, 8 Gill (Md.), 295, 310.
22 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 175, 29 L. ed. 601, 603; U. S. v. Maney, 61 Fed. 140.
23 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198; Re N. Y. & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 39 L. ed. 246. Lehman v. Gumbel, 236 U. S. 448, affirming the issue by a State court of a writ of prohibition against an
inferior court of the same State which relegated the parties to the court of bankruptcy.
24 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55.
25 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198; Re N. Y. & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 39 L, ed. 246. Re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495, 36 L. ed. 232, 239; Am. Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry, Co., 148 U. S. 372, 379, 37 L. ed. 486. Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Ferguson, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 756.
26 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. 8. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; Re
The writ will not issue when the relator has another adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise ; 87 for example, to set aside an injunction 28 or to prevent a District Court from taking jurisdiction of a suit against a non-resident.29 The requirement of a bond upon an appeal does not justify the issue of the writ.30 The writ will not issue to control the decision of the court below upon questions which such court is competent to decide. 31 Nor to correct an erroneous taxation of costs.32
The usual practice is, upon an application, regularly called a suggestion, in the name of the United States on the relation of the party aggrieved, for the court to grant a rule to the judge sought to be prohibited, to show cause why the writ should not issue, and to accompany the rule with an order that he proceed no further in the case till the decision of the upper court in the premises.33 It has been said that when the suit complained of is brought by a private person he may be joined as a defendant; but that when it is a suit or prosecution on behalf of the government the writ of prohibition can go to the court only. 34 The proceedings of a court-martial cannot be prohibited by such a writ addressed to an officer who ordered the court-martial to convene, but is not himself a member of it.86 The application for the writ should be supported by an affidavit where the motion for the writ of prohibition is founded upon matter not appearing upon the face of the proceeding below.36 It is the duty of the respondent to produce any evidence that exists to countervail the petitioner's proof of such new matter. 37
The respondent to the application should be the judge and
Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495, 36 L. ed. 232, 239; Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 403, 39 L. ed. 198, 201.
27 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198. Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. 8. 191, 55 L. ed. 431.
28 Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431.
29 EI parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, 461, 51 L. ed. 264, 268.
80 Alexander v. Crollot, 199 U. S. 580, 50 L. ed. 317.
81 Ex parte Southwestern Surety Ins. Co., 247 U. S. 20.
32 Re Peterson, 253 U. S. 300; Pope Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., C. C. A., 208 Fed. 406.
38 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L, ed. 354.
84 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 176, 29 L. ed. 601, 603, per Gray, J.
36 Re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403, 430, 34 L. ed. 222, 230, per Fuller, C. J.
not the parties interested in upholding the order.38 The return should be made by him and not by them.39
After the time for the return as expired a return may be filed by permission of the court. 40
The writ of prohibition cannot be used to correct errors of a court in deciding matters of law or fact within its jurisdiction,41 nor to undo what has been done; nor after a cause is finished below.43 The denial of the writ is not an adjudication that the court below had jurisdiction of the suit or proceeding.44
“The only effect of the writ is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction.'' 45
8 457. The writ of mandamus. In general. The writ of mandamus is a command issued in the name of the United States, directed to a person, corporation, or court within its jurisdiction, requiring the respondent to do some particular thing therein specified which pertains to its office or duty.1:
A mandamus will issue to compel a court to exercise its discretion in one way or another. The writ will issue to compel a court to proceed in a case which it has dismissed for want of jurisdiction, when the record before the lower court shows its jurisdiction, and there is no review by appeal or writ of error; but not when through mistake a paper showing the jurisdiction
38 Ex parte Indiana Transportation Co., 242 U. S. 281.
39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.
41 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. 8. 167, 176, 29 L. ed. 601, 603.,
42 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L, ed. 354.
43 Ex parte Joins, 191 U. S. 93, 48 L. ed. 110.
44 Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Ferguson, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 756.
45 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L, ed. 354.
$ 457. 1 Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 189, 190, 8 L. ed. 92, 93.
2 Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 189, 190, 8 L. ed. 92, 93; Ex parte Morgan, 114 U. S. 174, 29 L. ed. 135;
Ex parte Parker, 120 U. S. 737, 30 L. ed. 818; Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 37 L. ed. 1211.
3 Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 21 L. ed. 493; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507, 23 Ļ. ed. 103; Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4, 24 L. ed. 34; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 24 L. ed. 853; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794, 26 L. ed. 461; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U. S.. 566, 27 L. ed. 812; Hollon Parker, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 221, 33 L. ed. 123. But see Re Burdett, 127 U. Ş. 711, 32 L. ed. 321. Re Pennsyl. vania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453, 34 L. ed, 738, 739.
was not in the record and before the court. After a case has proceeded to the filing of a declaration and a plea to the jurisdiction, or its equivalent, and judgment in favor of the plea and for a dismissal of the action; the plaintiff is confined to his remedy by writ of error, and cannot by mandamus compel the inferior court to take jurisdiction of his case.5
The writ may issue: to compel a Circuit Court of Appeals to take jurisdiction of a writ of error, which it has improperly dismissed ; 6 but not to compel a District Court to remand a case because of a slip in practice, such as a failure to serve notice of the filing of the petition, nor because it has been removed to an improper district, 9 nor where jurisdiction is improperly claimed upon the ground of a separable controversy between citizens of different States, 10 nor where there is a controversy as to whether the suit is of a civil nature or for a penalty, 11 nor where a difference of citizenship appears, but the record does not show the residence of one or more of the parties unless the application is by a State, 18 a public minister or a consul, except possibly under extraordinary circumstances, in any case where jurisdiction is claimed becase of difference of citizenships 14 or because it arises under the Constitution and
4 Re Sherman, 124 U. S. 364, 31 L. ed. 423.
6 Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U. S. 566, 27 L. ed. 812; Ex. parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794, 26 L. ed. 461; Re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453, 34 L. ed. 738, 739.
6 Matter of Christensen Eng. Co., 194 U. S. 458, 48 L. ed. 1072; Re Merchants' Stock & Grain Co., 223 U. S. 639, 56 L. ed. 584.
7 U. 8. v. Sessions, C. C. A., 205 Fed. 502.
9 Ex parte Park Square Automobile Station, 244 U. S. 412.
10 Re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323, 51 L. ed. 1081, in which the writer was counsel; Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 52 L. ed. 876; Ex parte
Harding, 219 U. S. 363, 55 L. ed. 252.
11 Ex parte Gruetter, 217 U. S. 586, 54 L. ed. 892.
13 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 323, 329, 25 L. ed. 667, 671, 673; Virginia v. Paul, 148 U. S. 107, 37 L. ed. 386; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 50 L. ed. 633.
14 Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578, 26 L. ed. 1176; Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, 55 L. ed. 252; overruling in this respect Er parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449, 51 L. ed. 264; Re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, 52 L. ed. 904; and disapproving Re Winn, 213 U. S. 458, 53 L. ed. 873, which holds that the question whether the cause of action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United
laws of the United States 15 when the question may be reviewed upon appeal or writ of error.
The writ may issue to compel a District Judge of the United States to order the marshal to deliver to the county jailer certain prisoners convicted under indictments, or other criminal proceedings, illegally removed to the District Court of the United States; 16 to compel the allowance of an appeal,17 provided the applicant was a party to the suit; 18 to compel a judge to settle a bill of exceptions and to sign the bill after he has settled it; 19 or after it has been presented in duly proper form; 20 but not to extend the time for the preparation and settlement of a bill of exceptions, 21 nor to re-instate a bill of exceptions which after a hearing upon the merits has been stricken out,22 nor to sign a bill of exceptions which he considers not to state correctly the proceedings before him,23 although, he may be thus compelled to settle such part thereof as correctly sets forth any of the proceedings; 24 to compel a court to proceed in a suit which it has improperly stayed ; 25 to compel a judge to set aside an order
States may be reviewed by manda
15 Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70; but see Re Winn, 213 U. S. 458, 53 L. ed. 873.
16 Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 323, 329, 25 L. ed. 667, 671, 673; Virginia v. Paul, 148 U. S. 107, 37 L. ed. 386; Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U. S. 1, 50 L. ed. 633.
17 Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 24 L. ed. 123; Ex parte Railroad Co., 95 U. S. 221, 24 L. ed. 355; Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. 648, 22 L. ed. 690. But it was said that the writ may be denied where the order appealed from was wholly discretionary, and where the discretion was properly exercised. Lewis v. Baltimore & L. R. Co., C. C. A., 62 Fed. 218.
18 Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14, 24 L. ed. 49.
19 Chateaugay O. & I. Co., Peti
tioner, 128 U. S. 544, 32 L. ed. 508. See Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 189, 190, 8 L, ed. 92, 93.
20 Re Federal Life Ins. Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 908.
21 Camden Iron Works Co. v. Sater, C. C. A., 223 Fed. 611.
22 Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Dexter, 228 U. S. 516.
23 Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102, 7 L. ed. 796; Black v. Youmans, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 460.
24 Black v. Youmans, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 460.
25 Livingston Dorgenois, 7 Cranch, 577, 3 L. ed. 444; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris, C. C. A., 67 L.R.A. 761, 132 Fed. 945; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 54 L. ed. 762; Postal TelegraphCable Co. v. Call, C. C. A., 255 Fed. 850; but see Re Lasserot, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 325.