EX PARTE BURTIS
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 district judge in New York denied a motion to attach a person for failing to obey a subpoena duces tecum requiring production of evidence in an equity case. The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be used to compel an inferior court to reverse its discretionary decisions or control its judgment once made within its jurisdiction, even if the decision may have been erroneous.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a petition for a mandamus requiring the district, judge for the eastern district of New York to compel one Eliza M. Shepherd to obey the command of a subpoena duces tecum, and produce before a special examiner certain iron patterns of an old fire-place heater, that testimony might be taken respecting them, to be certified and used on the hearing of an equity cause pending in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. From the petition it appears that the judge has' already .acted on the idéntical showing made to us, and for reasons assigned in writing denied a motion for an attachment against the person named for refusing to obey the subpoena.
A writ of mandamus may be used to compel an inferior tribunal to act on a matter within its jurisdiction, but not to control its discretion while acting (Ex parte Railway Company, 101 U. S. 711), nor reverse its decisions when made. Ex parte Elippin, 94 id.
348. Both these rules are elementary, and are fatal to this application. .The district judge took jurisdiction of the matter, as it was his duty to do, heard the parties, and decided adversely, to the claim of the petitioner. In this he may have done wrong, and the reasons he has assigned may not be such as will bear the test of judicial criticism ; but we cannot, by mandamus, compel him to undo what he has thus done in the exercise of his legitimate jurisdiction. He was asked to punish a person for contempt in disobeying the process of the court. He decided not to do so. This action of his is beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Am. Steel Barrel Co. & Seaman, 230 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1913)…[*46] in this he made a mistake, it was one made in the course of the exercise of his legitimate jurisdiction under § 14 of the new Judicial Code, and we cannot compel him through a writ of mandamus to undo what has thus been done. Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238; In re Parsons, 150 U. S. 150. Aside from what has been said the long delay in asking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus would fully justify this court in the exercise of a sound discretion in. denying relief. The rule must he discharged.…
-
The Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co., 128 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1888)
-
Ex parte Morgan & Another, 114 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1885)…e used to require an inferior court to decide a matter within its •jurisdiction and pending before it for judicial determination, but not to .control the decision. Ex parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 350; Ex parte Railway Co., 101 U. S. 720; Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238. Here a judgment has been rendered and entered of record by the Circuit Court in a suit within its jurisdiction. The judgment is the act of the court. It is recorded ordinarily by the clerk as the ministerial officer of the court,, but his recording…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Ry. Co., 101 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1879)