Ex Parte Brown and Another, (1886)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number:
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 18, 1886
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 6 S. Ct. 387 116 U.S. 401 29 L. Ed. 676 Ex parte BROWN and another, Petitioners. Filed January 18, 1886. J. H. Mitchell , for the motion. WAITE, C. J. 1 This motion is denied. According to the petition, the court entertained jurisdiction of the cause, but dismissed it for want of due prosecution; that is to say, because errors had not been assigned in accordance with the rules of practice applicable to the form of the action. This is a judgment which can only be reviewed by writ of error or appe
Summary: 6 S. Ct. 387 116 U.S. 401 29 L. Ed. 676 Ex parte BROWN and another, Petitioners. Filed January 18, 1886. J. H. Mitchell , for the motion. WAITE, C. J. 1 This motion is denied. According to the petition, the court entertained jurisdiction of the cause, but dismissed it for want of due prosecution; that is to say, because errors had not been assigned in accordance with the rules of practice applicable to the form of the action. This is a judgment which can only be reviewed by writ of error or appea..
More
6 S. Ct. 387
116 U.S. 401
29 L. Ed. 676
Ex parte BROWN and another, Petitioners.
Filed January 18, 1886.
J. H. Mitchell, for the motion.
WAITE, C. J.
1
This motion is denied. According to the petition, the court entertained jurisdiction of the cause, but dismissed it for want of due prosecution; that is to say, because errors had not been assigned in accordance with the rules of practice applicable to the form of the action. This is a judgment which can only be reviewed by writ of error or appeal, as the case may be. Mandamus lies to compel a court to take jurisdiction in a proper case, but not to control its discretion while acting within its jurisdiction. This rule is elementary. Ex parte Morgan, 114 U.S. 174, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825, and cases cited.
Source: CourtListener
