EX PARTE VIRGINIA COMMISSIONERS
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.
Virginia state commissioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel issuance of a writ of error from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, but the Court denied the motion on the grounds that mandamus is not available when other adequate remedies exist. The Court held that a writ of error issues as a matter of right in proper cases, and security and citation requirements can be satisfied by application to either a Circuit Court judge or a Supreme Court justice, making mandamus premature until those alternative remedies have been exhausted.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
A writ of mandamus is not ordinarily granted when the party aggrieved has another adequate remedy. No formal allowance by the Circuit Court of a writ of error from this court to review a judgment of that court is required. Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 453. The writ issues in a proper case as a matter of right, but, when sued out,' security must be given, and a citation to the adverse party signed. This security may be taken and the citation signed by a judge of the Circuit Court, or any justice of this court. No action of the Circuit Court as a court is required. It does not appear from the petition that any application has been made to either of the judges of the Circuit Court to approve security or to sign a citation. If they should refuse on application hereafter, resort may be had to either of the justices of this court. It will be time enough to apply for a mandamus when all these remedies have failed.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Buder, 271 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1926)…and issued a rule to show cause. Mussina v. Cavazos, 20 How. 281; Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14. Where it was clear that the petitioner [*464] had another remedy the motion for leave to file the petition was denied. Ex parte Virginia Commissioners, 112 U. S. 177. The motion should likewise be denied where it is clear that the appeal does not lie, or for other reasons the relief sought by the petition cannot be granted. Ex parte Brown, post, p. 645. Compare In re Green, 141 U. S. 325; Iowa v. Slimmer, 248 U.…
-
Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri, 210 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1908)
-
Weinstein v. Black Diamond S. S. Corp., 31 F.2d 519 (2d Cir. 1929)…allowance [*520] should be made. Thus in Brandies v. Cochrane, 105 U. S. 262, 26 L. Ed. 989, an appeal was held good when the judge had signed the appeal bond and citation. The same was held as to a writ of error in Ex parte Virginia Commissioners, 112 U. S. 177, 5 S. Ct. 421, 28 L. Ed. 691, and Alaska United Gold Min. Co. v. Keating, 116 F. 561 (C. C. A. 9). See also (obiter) Fitzpatrick v. Graham, 119 F. 353, 354 (C. C. A. 2). In Louisville Trust Co. v. Stockton, 72 F. 1 (C. C. A. 5), signing the bill…