THE BANK OF COLUMBIA
v.
GEORGE SWEENY
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.
The Bank of Columbia sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court to withdraw an issue it had directed in a debt collection case and substitute a different one based on the bank's interpretation of Maryland's incorporation statute. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that mandamus was improper because the matter involved a question of law that could be reviewed only through a writ of error after final judgment, and allowing interlocutory mandamus review would circumvent the statute limiting Supreme Court jurisdiction to final judgments.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall,,
delivered the opinion of the Court.&emdash;
This case arose under the provision oLihe Act of the legislature of Maryland incorporating the Bank of Columbia, which authorizes summary process for the collection of debts due to the bank. That Act allows an execution against the person of the debtor, to issue in the first instance, upon the application of the president of the bank; but'it also authorizes the'Court,, if Upon the return of the execution the defendant‘s dispute the debt,” to order án issue to be made up', &c. to try the action.
In the present case, the Circuit' Court, did not refuse to direct such ¿n issue to be made up; which had they refused to do, a mandarmfs would have be^n the proper process to compel that to be done, which the Act requires. But the Circuit Court did direct an issue, and allow a plea of the statute of limitations..
The application now is, that the Circuit Court be ordered to withdraw that issue, and to direct a different issue,to be made up, according to what the counsel for the bank supposes to be the'proper.construction of the Act.
We think this is-not a proper cage for a mandamus.. It does, not differ in principle, from 'any other, ca.se in' which the party should plead a defective plea, and the plaintiff should demur to it; in which case, there is no .doubt that the revising power of this Court could be exercised only by a writ Of erx-or. If this motion could now prevail, it would be-a plain evasion of the provision of the Act of Congress, -that final judgments only should be brought before this . Court for re-examination.This.case might-still be brought' before this.Court by a writ of error, notwithstanding any opinion expressed' upon the mandamus, .and the samé question again be-' discussed upon the final judgment.' The .effect therefore of this mode of interposition, Would be to retard' decisions upon questions which were not final in the. Court' below, so that, titó same' cause might come before this Court many times, before there would be a final judgment.
The Court is therefore of.opinion that this is not a case for a mandamus~ and the motion is denied
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1949)…t of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole, case is adjudicated. ' The Court has long given this provision of the statute this practical rather than a technical construction. Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 569; United States v. River Rouge Co., 269 U. S. 411, 414; Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 328. We hold this order appealable because it is a final disposition of a claimed right which is not an ingredient [*547] of the cause of action…
-
Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1967)…Mandamus, of course, may never be employed as a substitute for appeal in derogation of these clear policies. E. g., Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962); Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 520-521 (1956); Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567, 569 (1828). Nor is the case against permitting the writ to be used as a substitute for interlocutory appeal “made less compelling ... by the fact that the Government has no later right to appeal.” DiBella v. United States, 369 U. S. 121, 130 (196…
-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943)…e of this mode of interposition would be to retard decisions upon questions which were not final in the court below, so that the same cause might come before this Court many times before there could be a final judgment.” Bank of Columbia v. Sweeney, 1 Pet. 567, 569. See also Life & Fire Insurance Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 573, 602; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578, 579-80; American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 379. For that reason this Court has consistently refused to su…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence