ANTHONY
v.
KAUFMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A petition for a writ of mandamus will not be entertained if it merely alleges an abuse of discretion in ordering a transfer, but will be entertained if the district judge lacked the power to make the transfer order.
One defendant could have been served in the transferee district, while the other defendant, who could not have been served there, joined in the applic…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, 2 Cir., 182 F. 2d 329, is not apposite, as there the district court refused to order a trans fer. For where, as here, the order directs a transfer, we have held that a petition for a writ of mandamus will not be entertained if it alleges merely an “abuse” of discretion.1 2Magnetic Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 178 F. 2d 866.2 If, however, the district judge lacked power to make his order of transfer, we will entertain such a petition. See Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F. 2d 949. In that case, the defendant, which could not have been served in the transferee district, objected to the transfer, and we issued a mandamus writ. But here, one defendant could have been served in the transferee district, while the pther defendant, which could not there have bgen served, has joined in the application for, and thus consented to, the transfer. That consent is a waiver of lack of venue; had such a waiver existed before plaintiff commenced suit, it could have been brought there. We think 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) covers such a case.3 Paramount Pictures v. Rodney, 3 Cir., 186 F. 2d 111.
Petition dismissed.
. The same rule must apply to a petition for a writ of prohibition.
. The writer of this opinion dissented from the decision in that case and still thinks it wrong, but feels obliged to abide by it until his - colleagues join in overruling it. See The Arrowhead v. S. S. Aimee Dykes, 2 Cir., 193 F. 2d 83.
. We left that question open in Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, 2 Cir., 182 F. 2d 329, 332 note 7.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1960)
-
In re Josephson, 218 F.2d 174 (1st Cir. 1954)
-
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 199 F.2d 610 (10th Cir. 1952)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, 182 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1950)
- Magnetic Eng'g & Mfg. Co. v. Dings MFG. Co., 178 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1950)
- Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Rodney, 186 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1950)
- Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F.2d 949 (2d Cir. 1950)
- Arrowhead Co., Inc. v. THE Aimee Lykes, 193 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1951)