Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

U. S., 2 Wheat. 221; Ex parte Martin, 5 Blatchf. 303; Ex parte Stupp, 12 Blatchf. 501; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75; Ex parte Buford, 3 Cranch, 75; U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. 258; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243; U. S. v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661.

§ 236. Mandamus.-The United States courts shall have jurisdiction upon the relation of any person or persons, firm or corporation, to issue a writ or writs of mandamus against a common carrier, commanding such carrier to move and transport traffic, or to furnish cars or other facilities for transportation for the party applying for the writ, under the Act of March 2, 1889, amendatory of an Act to regulate Commerce, approved February 4, 1887. (25 U. S. Stats. 862, sec. 19.) Circuit courts have jurisdiction to compel common carriers, under the Interstate Commerce Act, to publish rates of fares and freights. (24 U. S. Stats. 382.)

Writ of mandamus.-Wheeling v. Mayor, 1 Hughes, 90; Graham v. Norton, 15 Wall. 427; U. S. v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381; Riggs v. Johnson, 6 Wall. 166; Ex parte Holman, 28 Iowa, 88; Supervisors v. U. S., 4 Wall. 435; Galena v. Amy, 24 How. 376; Com. v. Sellew, 99 U. S. 624. To district court. (Smith v. Allen, 1 Paine, 453; The New England, 3 Sum. 495; Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Peters, 279; The Enterprise, 3 Wall. Jr. 58.) To State courts. (Ladd v. Tudor, 3 Wood & M. 325; Fisk v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 6 Blatchf. 362; Hough v. West. Trans. Co., 1 Biss. 425; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450; Labette County v. United States, 112 U. S. 217: In re Sherman, 124 U. S. 364.)

Writ of execution.-Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1; Bank of U. S. v. Halstead, 10 Wheat, 51.

Writ of attachment.-Voss v. Luke, 1 Cranch C. C. 331; U. S. v. Williams, 4 Cranch C. C. 372.

Writ of assistance.-Terrell v. Allison, 21 Wall, 289.

Writ of inhibition.-Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54. Writ of injunction -An injunction will not be granted by a United States court to interfere with the possession, control, or disposition of property in the hands of the State court (Hutchinson v. Green, 2 McCrary, 471); so if the sheriff has possession of property under process of the State court he cannot be displaced by process from the Federal court (Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679); nor can a Federal court interfere with property in the hands of a receiver appointed by the State court (Mercantile Trust Co. v. Lamoille Val. R. R. Co. 16 Blatchf. 324); nor can a party be restrained from taking possession of property which a judgment of the State court requires to be delivered to him. (Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. See Claybrook v. Owensboro, 16 Fed. Rep. 303.)

Writ of subpoena.-A subpoena duces tecum cannot issue to a witness not a party to a suit to compel him to bring before the court patterns for a stove. (In re Shepard, 18 Blatchf. 226.)

§ 237 (717). Writs of ne exeat.-Writs of ne exeat may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any circuit justice or circuit judge in cases where they might be granted by the circuit court of which he is a judge. But no writ of ne exeat shall be granted unless a suit in equity is commenced, and satisfactory proof is made to the court or judge granting the same that the defendant designs quickly to depart from the United States. (Rev. Stats. sec. 717.)

The writ cannot be issued unless a party intends to eave the United States. (Lowenstein v. Biernbaum, 8 Week. Notes, 163; see Patterson v. McLaughlin, 1 Cranch C. C. 352; Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Kellogg, 5 Week. Notes, 477.) To obtain the writ, the party must swear positively to a debt or to a belief that a certain balance is Que him. (Gernon v. Boccaline, 2 Wash. C. C. 130.) It

must be an equitable debt or pecuniary claim, and be certain, or capable of reduction to certainty. (Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50.) So a claim for the return of property is not sufficient. (Graham v. Stucken, 4 Blatchf. 50.) A district judge has no power to award the writ. (Gernon v. Boccaline, 2 Wash. C. C. 130.)

§ 238 (718). Temporary restraining orders.—Whenever notice is given of a motion for an injunction out of a circuit or district court, the court or judge thereof may, if there appears to be danger of irreparable injury from delay, grant an order restraining the act sought to be enjoined until the decision upon the motion; and such order may be granted with or without security, in the discretion of the court or judge. (Rev. Stats. sec. 718.)

An injunction may be granted on motion without previous notice to the adverse party (Yuengling v. Johnson, 1 Hughes, 607); but the court may in its discretion require notice to be given (Iving v. Hughes, 7 Am. Law Reg. 209; In re Wallace, 1 Deady, 433; In re Muller, 1 Deady, 513; In re Carlton, 1 Deady, 292; In re Smith, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 231); and what is seasonable notice depends on the circumstances of the case. (New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1.) It should not be granted without notice, whether granted by the court or a judge thereof. (New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1; Wynn v. Wilson, Hemp. 698; Lawrence v. Bowman, 1 McAll. 419; Perry v. Parker, 1 Wood. & M 280.) If a party voluntarily appears, it will be presumed that he had regular and timely notice. (Marsh v. Bennett, 5 McLean, 117; Bradley v. Reed, 12 Pittsb. L. J. 65.)

§ 239 (719). Injunctions.-Writs of injunction may be granted by any justice of the Supreme Court in cases where they might be granted by the Supreme Court; and by any judge of a circuit

court in cases where they might be granted by such court. But no justice of the Supreme Court shall hear or allow any application for an injunction or restraining order in any cause pending in the cir. cuit to which he is allotted, elsewhere than within such circuit, or at such place outside of the same as the parties may stipulate in writing, except when it cannot be heard by the circuit judge of the circuit or the district judge of the district. And an injunction shall not be issued by a district judge as one of the judges of the circuit court, in any case where a party has had a reasonable time to apply to the circuit court for the writ; nor shall any injunction so issued by a district judge continue longer than to the circuit court next ensuing, unless so ordered by the circuit court. (Rev. Stats. sec. 719.)

Justice of Supreme Court.-A justice of the Supreme Court may hear an application outside the circuit when from any cause the parties cannot present it to the circuit or district judge (Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621), or in case of absence or sickness of the circuit and district judges (Searles v. Jacksonville, P. & M. R. R. Co., 2 Woods, 621); and if the allotted justice and the circuit and district judges are absent from the district and circuit, the writ may be allowed by a justice allotted to another circuit. (United States v. L. & P. Can. Co. 4 Dill. 600.

Circuit judge. —A circuit judge cannot issue the writ at a distance from the clerk's office when the court is in session. (Goodyear Dental V. Co. v. Folsom, 3 Fed. Rep. 509.)

District judge. -The district judge when holding the circuit court may issue the writ (Goodyear Dental V. Co. v. Folsom, 3 Fed. Rep. 509); but he cannot issue it beyond his jurisdiction further than to the next term of the

circuit court (In re Dudley, 1 Penn. L. J. 302), when it ceases to be in force unless an order is made for its continuance. (Parker v. Judges, 12 Wheat. 561; Gray v. Chicago, Iowa & N. R. R. Co., 1 Woolw. 63); but if the circuit court refuses to dissolve it, it may be treated as an order for its continuance. (Parker v. Judges, 12 Wheat. 561.) A district judge cannot sign a writ of injunction in vacation, when the circuit court can be applied to. (Goodyear Dental V. Co. v. Folsom, 3 Fed. Rep. 509.)

§ 240 (720.) Injunction to stay proceedings in State courts.-The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy. [See sec. 5106.] (Rev. Stats. sec. 720.)

This section must be construed in connection with sec. 716. (Sharon v. Terry, 1 L. R. A. 572) It does not apply where the Federal cour first obtained jurisdiction. (Id.) The prohibition in this section against injunctions by Federal courts to stay proceedings in a State court except in bankruptcy cases, is not in any part repealed or abrogated by U. S. Rev. Stats. sec. 1979, which was a part of the Civil Rights Bill of 1871. (Hemsley v. Myers, 45 Fed. Rep. 283.)

Restraining proceedings in State courts.-This section applies to the restraint of suits, which, but for the injunction, the State court would have jurisdiction over (In re Long Island etc. Trans. Co. 5 Fed. Rep. 628), and only such as are commenced in a State court before proceedings in the Federal court have been commenced (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co. 10 Blatchf. 518); for if a suit be commenced in the Federal court, subsequent proceedings in a State court may be restrained. (Fisk v. Union Pac. R. Co. 10 Blatchf. 518.) "Proceedings" include all steps taken in a suit from its inception to final process. (U. S. v. Collins, Blatchf. 142.) This section is an inhibition against staying a party in the conduct of the proceedings

« AnteriorContinuar »