IN RE HABERMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER
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.
Haberman Manufacturing Company sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to grant a supersedeas (stay) of an injunction pending appeal, claiming an absolute right to such relief under Section 7 of the Judiciary Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that Section 7 does not grant an automatic right to a supersedeas of an injunction on appeal, but rather leaves the matter to the discretion of the Circuit Court, which cannot be overridden by mandamus.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Blatci-iford,
after stating the case, delivered, the opinion of the court.
It is contended for the petitioner that it is entitled, as a matter of right, to a supersedeas of the injunction pending the appeal, and that the Circuit Court had no discretion to refuse it. As authority for this alleged' right reference is made to § 7 of the act of March 3,1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 828, which provides : “ That where, .upon a hearing in equity in a District Court, or in an existing Circuit Court, an injunction shall be granted, or continued by an interlocutory order or decree, in a cause in which an appeal from a final decree may be taken under the provisions of this act to the Circuit Court of Appeals, an appeal may be taken from such interlocutory order or decree granting or continuing such injunction to the Circuit Court of Appeals: Provided, That the appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of such order or decree, and it shall take precedence in the Appellate Court; and the proceedings in other respects in the court below shall not be stayed unless otherwise ordered by that court’during the pendency of said appeal.” . - It is clear that this is a case in which the appeal was properly taken and within the time limited; and it is contended for the petitioner that under § 7 it has an absolute right to a supersedeas of the injunction pending the appeal, on the filing of a bond satisfactory to the Circuit Court. Reference is made to the case of Pasteur v. Blount, 51 Fed. Rep. 610, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where, a supersedeas having been allowed, on granting .a like appeal, a motion to vacate the supersedeas was denied, the court (Jackson, Circuit Judge) saying that, under § 7, there was no discretion in .the court or judge allowing the same to deny or refuse the appellant a supersedeas.
The argument made is, that the use, in § 7, of the words “ in other respects,” implies that there must be a stay as to the operation of an injunction, while the only discretion given is as to ordering a stay, “ in other respects ” than as to the injunction. But there is no express provision that'the operation of the injunction must be stayed. The matter is rested wholly on implication. The defendant is sought to be protected by requiring him to take an appeal within thirty days and by giving precedence to the case in the appellate court; and discretion is given to the Circuit Court to proceed or not on the interlocutory decree pending the appeal. "Where a plaintiff has an adjudication that he is entitled to an injunction, he has rights which cannot be abridged or stayed by language which is not more clear and unambiguous than that contained in § 7. The matter may be made clear by legislation. As it stands, the Circuit Court had a discretion to grant or refuse a supersedeas ; and its discretion, as we have uniformly held, (In re Hawkins, Petitioner, ante, 486, and cases there cited,) cannot be controlled by a writ of mandamus.
Application denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 316 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1942)…the division of function which the legislature has made between the administrative body and the court of review. “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant. In re Haberman Manufacturing Co., 147 U. S. 525. It is an exercise of judicial discretion. The propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of [*11] the particular case.” Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 672-73; see Merchants Warehouse Co. v. United States, 283 U.…
-
Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1926)…r to stay the order of the Commission pending the appeal in this Court, its action was not warranted by the facts. A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant. In re Haberman Manufacturing Co., 147 U. S. 525. It is an exercise of judicial discretion. The propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances [*673] of the particular ease. An application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s order pending an appeal from a final decree dismissi…
-
Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works, 165 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1897)…use of the section, and often exercised by other courts of chancery, to take further proceedings in the cause, unless- in its discretion it orders them to be stayed, pending the appeal. Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U. S. 150, 160, 161; In re Haberman Co., 147 U. S. 525; Messonnier v. Kauman, 3 Johns. Ch. 66. In each of the cases now before the court, therefore, the Circuit Court of Appeals, upon appeal from the interlocutory decree of the Circuit Court, granting an injunction and ordering an account, had authorit…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sage v. Cent. R.R. Co. of Iowa, 93 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1876)
- Phillips v. Preston, 11 How. 294 (U.S. 1850)