IN RE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, 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.
Massachusetts petitioned the Supreme Court for writs of prohibition and mandamus in a controversy that did not fall within the Court's original or appellate jurisdiction. The Court held that it lacked the authority to issue these extraordinary writs as ancillary remedies in cases over which it possessed neither original nor appellate jurisdiction, and therefore denied the petition.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
• This court has no original jurisdiction over this controversy, in any view, because it is not a controversy between a State and a citizen of another State. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395. And it has not appellate jurisdiction, because since the passage of the act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 434, c. 74, establishing the court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, this court, generally speaking, and not including cases arising under the bankruptcy law, Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, cannot review the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District, directly by appeal or writ of error. ' By section 716 of the Revised Statutes, this court and the Circuit and District Courts “have power to issue all writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
By section 688, prohibition may issue “in the District Courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” but there is no similar provision in respect of other courts. And it has been repeatedly held, as to the Circuit Courts, that they have no power under section 716 to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, except when necessary in the exercise of their existing jurisdiction. Bath County v. Almy, 13 Wall. 244, 248; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 601.
This is equally true of this court, that is to say, that in cases over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdicT tion we cannot grant prohibition or mandamus or certiorari as ancillary thereto.
Rule discharged; petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1914)
-
Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943)…federal appellate jurisdiction came under careful scrutiny. This Court uniformly and without dissent held that it was without power to issue a writ of mandamus in a case in which it did not otherwise have appellate jurisdiction. In re Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482, and In re Glaser, 198 U. S. 171. In these cases, rules were discharged because, under the Circuit Courts of Appeals Act, appeals could not be brought directly to the Supreme Court but would have to go to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and only ther…1 / 2
-
Michaelson v. United States Ex rel. Chicago, 266 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1924)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (67 total)
- Osborn and others v. The President, 9 Wheat. 738 (U.S. 1824)
- United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1882)
- William B. Shields and others v. Barlow, 17 How. 130 (U.S. 1854)
- Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1879)
- In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1887)
- Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1902)
- Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 (U.S. 1821)
- In re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1893)
- Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1896)
- Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1900)