EX PARTE BROWN & ANOTHER
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
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, and cases, cited.
Motion denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
State v. Tedder, 123 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1936)…0, 137 South. Rep. 272. The corollary follows that the court has no power to ignore court procedure. ' This proceeding is not for the purpose of correcting an error committed while exercising jurisdiction, which is not permissible, Ex parte Brown, 116 U. S. 401, 29 L. Ed. 676, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387; State, ex rel. Matheson, v. King, 32 Fla. 416, 13 South. Rep. 891, but to compel the judge to observe court procedure to the end that he may exercise [*200] judgment or discretion in the determination of the caus…
-
State v. Young, 31 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1893)
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. J. D. Matheson & Co. v. King, 32 Fla. 416 (Fla. 1893)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Morgan & Another, 114 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1885)