M'INTIRE
v.
WOOD
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.
M'Intire sought a writ of mandamus to compel a federal land office register to issue final certificates of purchase for lands to which M'Intire claimed entitlement under federal law. The Supreme Court held that circuit courts lack the power to issue writs of mandamus except when necessary to the exercise of their own jurisdiction, and therefore the circuit court properly refused to grant the mandamus. The Court reasoned that although federal judicial power extends to cases arising under federal law, Congress has not delegated to circuit courts the authority to issue mandamus in such cases, instead reserving to the Supreme Court appellate review of such disputes originating in state courts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Johnson, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows :
I am instructed to deliver the opinion of the Court in this case. It comes up on a division of opinion in the Circuit Court of Ohio, upon a motion for a mandamus to the register of the land office, at Marietta, commanding him to-grant final certificates of purchase to the Plaintiff for lands, to which he supposed himself entitled under the laws of the United States.
This Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court did not possess the power to issue the mandamus moved for. Independent of the particular objections which this case presents fromits involving a question of freeholdwe are of opinion that the po\ver of the Circuit Courts to issue the writ of mandamus, is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the ex-of their jurisdiction. Had the 11th section of the judiciary act covered the whole ground of the constitution, there would be much reason for exercising this' power in many cases wherein some ministerial act is necessary to the completion of an individual right arising under laws of the United States, and the lith section of the same act would sanction the issuing of the writ for such a purpose. But although the judicial power of the United States extends to cases arising under the laws of the United States, the legislature have not thought proper to delegate the exercise of that povyer to its Circuit Courts, except in certain specified cases. When questions arise under those laws in the State Courts, and the party who claims a right or privilege under them is unsuccessful, an appeal is given to the Supreme Court, and this provision the legislature has thought sufficient at present for all the political purposes intended to be answered by the clause of the constitution, which relates to this subject.
A case occurred some years since in the Circuit Court of Soutli Carolina, the notoriety of which may apologize for making an observation upon it here. It was a mandamus to a collector to grant a clearance, and unquestionably could not have been issued but upon a supposition inconsistent with the decision in this case. But that mandamus was issued upon the voluntary submission of the collector and the district attorney, and in order lo extricate themselves from an embarrassment resulting from conflicting duties. Volenti non Jit injuria.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (65 total)
-
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991)…Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421U. S. 240, 258-259 (1975). The Rule recognizes that Congress defines the procedural and remedial powers of federal courts, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1941); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 505-506 (1813), and controls the costs, sanctions, and fines available there, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U. S. 827, 835 (1990) (“[T]he allocation of the costs accruing from litigation is a matter for the legislature, not the…
-
United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1977)…iate in the exercise of a district court’s original jurisdiction. These restraints are necessary concomitants of the undisputed fact that the All Writs Act does not provide federal courts with an independent grant of jurisdiction. McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U. S. 450. The factors mentioned above may be relevant in determining whether the court has ancillary jurisdiction over the dispute. See Dugas v. American Surety Co., 300 U. S. 414; Labette County Commr’s v. Moulton, 112 U.…
-
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Tr. Co., 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1895)
Previewing 3 of 65 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence