EX PARTE: IN RE GLASER, 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.
Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix of a deceased estate, petitioned for mandamus to compel a Circuit Court judge to take jurisdiction of a negligence suit against Anthony P. Langer and to strike an order denying her application to compel an answer, where the judge had found no action was pending due to a defect in the issuance of a summons. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to grant mandamus in cases involving District and Circuit Courts, as Congress had eliminated direct appellate review of such courts' judgments after the Act of March 3, 1891.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a petition by Gertrude'Glaser,; as administratrix, for mandamus, requiring the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York to take jurisdiction and proceed against Anthony P. Langer in a certain suit alleged by petitioner to. be pending and undetermined in that court, wherein Gertrude Glaser,...as administratrix, is plaintiff,, and Anthony P. Langer is defendant, and to strike from the records of the court a certain order made on the fourteenth day of November, 1904, entitled: “ 'In the Matter of the Application, of Gertrude Glaser, Administratrix, &c., to compel the filing of an answer, or other relief, in an action alleged to be pending between Gertrude Glaser, as Administratrix, &c., of Isador Glaser, deceased, Plaintiff, and Anthony P. Langer, Defendant,’ whereby petitioner’s application to compel the filing of said answer was denied, on the ground that no such action was pending, and to make such disposition of said suit as ought to have teen made had said order not been made and entered therein . . .”
-The petition alleged the commencement in the-Circuit Court of a common law action by petitioner as administratrix against Langer, 'to recover damages for negligence causing the death of petitioner’s, husband, and rested the jurisdiction on diversity of, citizenship. The circumstances: in respect of a mistake, by reason of which no summons was issued, though service of copy was made, are set forth in detail, and the fact alleged of notice of appearance and answer, and the assertion by defendant’s attorney that this was in ignorance of the defect as to summons.
Leave to file the petition was granted, and this having been done,- a rule was entered therebto, to which the judge presiding in the Circuit Court, and before whom all the proceedings referred to in the petition were had, and by whom the decision was made, made due return, submitting his action in the premises, and certifying that his reasons for denying the motion were set forth irrtfre order, which is given at length. It appears therefrom-rthat the motion was denied “upon.the sole ground that no action of Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix of the goods, chattels and credits of Isador 'Glaser, deceased, plaintiff, against Anthony P. Langer, defendant, is nor ever has. been pending in this court..”
In. cases, over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdiction; we cannot grant mandamus. Rev. Stat. § 716; In re Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Petitioner, 197 U. S. 482.
- Of course there is no pretense of original jurisdiction here, arid since the passage of the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, we have no jurisdiction to review the judgments or decrees of the District and Circuit Courts directly by appeal or writ of error in cases such as this case if pending in the Circuit Court.
Rule discharged. Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Republic of Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1943)…me 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 thereafter could they come here, if at…
-
Ex parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1932)…f the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, this [*247] court could not review the judgments and decrees of the supreme court of the district directly by appeal or writ of error. In re Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482. And see also In re Glaser, 198 U. S. 171. Assuming that an application of those decisions to the present case would necessitate a denial of the writ, later cases clearly indicate that the rule as thus limited no longer obtains. In McClellan v. Carland, supra, p. 279, this court significant…
-
Chandler v. Jud. Council of the Tenth Cir., 398 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1970)…u, 318 U. S. 578 (1943); Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241, 248-249 (1932); McClellan v. Garland, 217 U. S. 268 (1910); cf. FTC v. Bean Foods Co., 384 U. S. 597 (1966); Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21 (1943). But cf. In re Glaser, 198 U. S. 171, 173 (1905); In re Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482, 488 (1905). [*113] Each of the prior cases in which this Court has invoked § 1651 (a) to issue a writ “in aid of [its jurisdiction]” has involved a particular lawsuit over which the Court would have s…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1877)
- In re Pa. Co., 137 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1890)
- In re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1893)
- In re Grossmayer, 177 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1900)
- In re Commonwealth OF Mass., 197 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1905)