GEORGE W. WARD, AND RICHARD K. CALL, REGISTER AND RECEIVER (U. S.), APPELLANTS
v.
LEWIS GREGORY; SAME, APPELLANTS V. JACOB ROBINSON AND F. SWEARINGEN
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 Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from territorial Florida courts that had issued a mandamus ordering federal land officers to permit settlers to purchase land under a congressional preemption act of 1826. The Court held that because mandamus proceedings were common law actions, they should have been brought to the Supreme Court by writ of error rather than by appeal, making the appellate procedure improper.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On thé 13th December 1826, on. the. application of the appellees to the superior court of appeals for the middle district, of Florida, a mandamus was issued directed to George W. Ward, the register, of the western land district of Florida, and to Richard K. Call, receiver of public moneys in said district, commanding them to permit the persons praying for the mandamus to enter and purchase certain sections of land, described, in the writ, under the provisions of the act of congress of the 22d of April 1826, which gave rights of pre-emption in the purchase of land to certain settlers in the states of Alabama and Mississippi, and the territory of Florida. From the superior court, the case was removed by a writ of error, to the court of Appeals for the territory of Florida; and, on the 21st of January 1831, the order of the superior court was affirmed by the court of. appeals. From this judgment the United States appealed to this court.
The court.ordered the appeal to be dismissed; the proceedings by mandamus being at common law, and therefore the cases should have been brought up by writs of error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bishop v. Chillingworth, 114 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1934)…ect on a writ of error taken to the inferior court’s judgment. In cases where so employed, a writ of mandamus is in the nature. of a procedendo. Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch (U. S.) *576, 3 L. Ed. 444; Ex Parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters (U. S.) 634, 8 L. Ed. 810; New York Fire & Life. Ins. Co. v. Wilson’s Heirs, [*293] 8 Peters (U. S.) 291, 8 L. Ed. 949; In re United States, 194 U. S. 194, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 629, 48 L. Ed. 931; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 313, 25 L. Ed. 667. In Rest v. State, 77 Fla. 225, 8…
-
Point Conversions, LLC. v. Pfeffer & Marin Holdings, LLC. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…83, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of opinions recognizing that mandamus was the proper vehicle to challenge the abject failure by a lower tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over a given action. Ex parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. 634, 648, 8 L. Ed. 810 (1833); see also Ex parte Parker, 120 U.S. 737, 743, 7 S. Ct. 767, 769, 30 L. Ed. 818 (1887) (“This presents a case for the exercise of the jurisdiction of this court in mandamus according to the principles and practice applicable thereto. That writ…
-
Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1879)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence