Imágenes de páginas

denying an injunction and vacating a restraining order which he has previously granted forbidding action by an officer of a State ; 26 to set aside an order beyond its jurisdiction made subsequent to a final decree,27 to take jurisdiction of a writ of scire facias which it has improperly quashed ; 28 to prescribe the method and direct the service of a writ of scire facias, and, after due service, to take jurisdiction of, and to decide, issues raised thereupon ; 29 to compel a judge to restore a case to the jury calendar after he has improperly directed that it be transferred to the equity docket ; 30 to allow papers filed in a court to be produced for evidence in another suit ; 31 to compel a court to proceed to judgment,82 and when the act of signing the judgment was purely ministerial to sign it; 33 to execute a judyment it has rendered ; 34 to set aside the suspension of a sentence ; 35 to execute a previous mandate of the Supreme Court,36 or of a Circuit Court of Appeals; 87 and to compel the reinstatement in a court of the United States or of the District of Columbia

26 Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co., 220 U. S. 539, 55 L. ed. 575.

27 New Liverpool Salt Co. v. Wellborn, C. C. A., 160 Fed. 923; Re Dennett, C. C. A., 215 Fed. 673. But see Ex parte Bradstreet, 8 Pet. 588, 8 L. ed. 1054.

28 Re Connaway, 178 U. S. 421, 44 L. ed. 1134.

29 Collin County Nat. Bank of Mc. Kinney Tex. v. Hughes, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 414.

80 Ex parte Simons, 247 U. S. 231; in which the author was counsel. Contra Ex parte Mason, C. C. A., 254 Fed. 154.

31 Ex parte Uppercu, 239 U. S. 435.

32 Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 291, 8 L. ed. 949; Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 571, 9 L. ed. 233; Re Watts, C. C. A., 214 Fed. 80.

38 Ex parte Bradstreet, 6 Pet. 774, 8 L. ed. 577; Life & Fire Ins.

[ocr errors]

of an attorney who had been disbarred, in a case of which the court had no jurisdiction or acted with flagrant impropriety.88

A mandamus will not be issued when there is any other appropriate relief,39—as, for example, by writ of error or appeal, 40 or certiorari,41_nor to control the exercise of discretion,42 except, possibly, in case of a very flagrant abuse of discretion.48 The writ of mandamus has been denied when asked to compel a court or judge to allow or refuse an amendment of a pleading, 44 to strike impertinent matter from a pleading ; 48 to order a withdrawal of a plea ; 46 to allow the filing of double pleas; 47 to allow an intervention ; 48 to grant the applicant a revivor ; 49 to set aside the designation of a judge to hear a proceeding in the place of

152, 20 L. ed. Newman, 14 Wall.

38 Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall, 364, 249 Fed. 155. 'An appeal from an 19 L. ed. 214; Ex parte Robinson, interlocutory injunction affords an 19 Wall. 506, 22 L. ed. 205. But see adequate remedy. Ex parte OklaEx parte Burr, 9 Wheat, 529, 6 L. homa, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431; ed. 152; Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. McSherry 9, 15 L. ed. 565; Ex parte Wall. 107 Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 155 Fed. 524. U. S. 265, 27 L. ed. 552; Re Green, 41 Ex parte Park Square Automo. 141 U. S. 325, 35 L. ed. 765. But bile Station, 244 U. S. 412. see Barnes v. Lyons, C. C. A., 187 4 2 Ex parte Railway Co., 101 U. Fed. 881.

S. 711, 25 L. ed. 872; Ex parte Rob39 Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, erts, 6 Pet. 216, 8 L. ed. 375; Ex 1 Pet. 567, 7 L. ed. 265; U. S. v. parte Davenport, 6 Pet. 661, 8 L. Addison, 22 How. 174, 16 L. ed. ed. 537; Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 304; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 634, 8 L, ed. 810; Ex parte Brad152, 20 L. ed. 877; Re Morrison, street, 4 Pet. 102, 7 L. ed. 796; Ex 147 U. S. 14, 26, 37 L. ed. 60, 65. parte Bradstreet, 8 Pet. 588, 8 L.

40 Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. ed. 1054; Ex parte Milwaukee R. 152, 20 L. ed. 877; Ex parte Bal- Co., 5 Wall. 188, 18 L. ed. 676; Life timore & O. R. Co., 108 U. S. 566, & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Pet. 27 L, ed. 812; Ex parte Brown, 116 291, 8 L. ed. 949. U. S. 401, 29 L. ed. 676; Connecti. 48 Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364, cut Mut. L. Ins. Co., Petitioner, 131 19 L. ed. 214. U. S. App. clxxxi; Re Morrison, 147 4 4 Ex parte Bradstreet, 7 Pet. 634, U. S. 14, 26, 37 L. ed. 60, 65; Am. 8 L. ed. 810. Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & 45 Lovell-McConnell Mfg. Co. v. K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 379, Brindrim, C. C. A., 219 Fed. 533. 37 L. ed. 486, 489; Ex parte Roe, 46 Ex parte Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 234 U. S. 70; Ex parte Park Square 7 L. ed. 265. Automobile Station, 244 U. S. 412; 47 Ex parte Davenport, 6 Pet. 661, Re L. S. Starrett Co., C. C. A., 204 8 L, ed. 537. Fed. 588; U. S. v. Sessions, C. C. A., 48 Re Engelhard, 231 U. S. 646. 205 Fed. 502; Re Duncan, C. C. A., 49 Er parte Slater, 246 U. S. 128,

15:40 Eco parte Newman, 14. Wall.

one who had retired for reasons alleged to be insufficient; 50 upon the application of a private individual, to remand a civil case after a motion for a remand had been denied by the court below; 51 to retain jurisdiction of a case which had been remanded to the State court since the act of March 3, 1887 ; 52 to vacate interlocutory orders which did not terminate the suit; 68 to vacate a preliminary injunction ; 54 to vacate an order setting aside a non-suit; 65 to punish a party for an alleged contempt; 56 to open a default ; 67 to quash a writ of execution ; 68 to admit a prisoner to bail; 69 to diminish the amount of bail required for a prisoner's discharge; 60 to approve a bond; 61 to compel the issue of a subpoena duces tecum ; 62 to compel a witness to answer specified questions ; 63 to grant a rehearing ; 64 to receive further proofs on an appeal in admiralty ; 65 to vacate an order directing a district attorney and a marshal to deliver the official books of

50 Ex parte Am. Steel Barrel Co., 230 U. S. 35.

51 Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578, 26 L. ed. 1178; Re Pollitz, 206 U. S. 323, 51 L. ed. 1081; Ex parte Nebraska, 209 U. S. 436, 52 L. ed. 876; Ex parte Harding, 219 U. S. 363, 55 L. ed. 252; Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70; Ex parte Park Square Automobile Station, 244 U. S. 412. See supra.

62 Re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453, 34 L. ed. 738, 739.

58 Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Pet. 279, 10 L. ed. 161; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet. 404, 10 L. ed. 221; Gain v. Relf, 15 Pet. 9, 10 L. ed. 642; Ex parte Perry, 102 U. S. 183, 26 L. ed. 43; Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. 8. 240, 25 L. ed. 105; Am. Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 379, 37 L. ed. 486, 489.

54 Ex parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240, 25 L. ed. 105.

55 Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418, 24 L. ed. 165.

56 Minnesota · Moline Plow Co. v.

[ocr errors]

record to persons appointed by the President as their successors, whose title they disputed ;66 to transmit a specified paper with the transcript of the record.67

The writ will not issue except in an extraordinary case against a judge where there is no proof of a demand that he do as the writ would direct,68 nor to compel the performance of an act by a person who is under no duty in respect thereto.69

Where the record shows apparent jurisdiction, the writ will not be issued to compel a dismissal of a cause for want thereof, unless evidence showing such a defect is before the court.70 It is not the office of a mandamus to direct a court to decide in a particular way a matter before it within its jurisdiction,71 even when there is no remedy by writ of error or appeal.72

The issue of the writ is within the discretion of the court.78

As a general rule a writ of mandamus will not issue when there is any other adequate remedy for the relator.74 A mandamus will not issue in a case of doubtful right.75 A mandamus will not issue in a case where the relator has another adequate remedy, and the grant of the writ may affect the rights of

66 Re Parsons, 150 U. S. 150, 37 L. ed. 1034.

67 Starcke v. Klein, C. C. A., 62 Fed. 502. The proper remedy seems to be a certiorari for a diminution of the record. See infra, $.460.

68 Edinburg Coal Co. v. Humph reys, C. C. A., 134 Fed. 839.

69 U. S. v. Lake Drummond Canal & Water Co., 228 Fed. 66; U. S. v. Basic Products Co., 260 Fed. 472.

70 Re Cleland, 218 U. S. 120, 54 L. ed. 962. Where the evidence was not before the court of review, it refused to issue the writ to compel the dismissal of proceedings in bankruptcy against the corporation, on the ground that the petition failed to show that such corporation belonged to the class specified in the statute. Matter of Riggs, 214 U. S. 9, 53 L. ed. 887.

71 Re Morrison, 147 U. S. 1, 26,

37 L. ed. 55, 65. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. McSherry Mfg. Co., C. C. A., 155 Fed: 524; Er parte Park & Tilford, 244 U. S. 582; Ex.parte Slater, 246 U. S. 128. A determination ; Primos Chemical Co. v. Fulton Steel Corporation, 254 Fed. 454.'

72 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198.

73 Re Cleland, 218 U. S. 120, 122, 54 L. ed. 962, 964, where it was said that the delay and inconsistent position of the petitioner to the writ might be a ground for denying the same. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Lochren, C. C. A., 143 Fed. 211.

74 Re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453, 34 L. ed. 738, 739.

75 U. S. ex rel. Redfield v. Windom, 137 U, S. 636, 644, 34 L. ed. 811, 814, per Lamar, J., citing Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson's Heirs, 8 Pet. 291, 302, 8 L. ed. 949, 953.

persons who are not parties to the proceedings, or where it will be attended with manifest hardship and difficulties.76 The want of any other remedy does not always authorize the issue of the writ.77

A State court cannot by injunction or otherwise interfere with the issue of a writ of mandamus by a Federal court.78

§ 457a. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus. The Supreme Court has power to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law,' to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States; 2 or where a State or an ambassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul is a party, to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, but when a State is a party, only when such officer is a citizen of another State. The Constitution prohibits the grant to that court of any further original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to officers of the United States.5

The power of the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus directed to other courts of the United States is authorized by the Constitution, because such a writ is in the nature of appellate jurisdiction. In a case ultimately within its power of review, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction thus to compel the filing of the record in a Circuit Court of Appeals. After the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals has been filed in a District Court it is doubtful whether the Supreme Court of the United

[ocr errors]

7 Ex parte Abdu, 247 U. S. 27. $ 457a. 10. S. R. S., 8 688.

2 Re Green, 141 U. S. 325, 35 L. ed. 765.

« AnteriorContinuar »