THE LIFE AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK
v.
CHRISTOPHER ADAMS
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 Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York sought a mandamus remedy against a district judge, and the parties disagreed about whether the Supreme Court must follow regular procedural requirements by issuing and serving a rule to show cause before proceeding. The Court held that while a rule to show cause is normally required, the Court may exercise discretion to dispense with this formality when all parties are ready to proceed and the defendant waives notice, allowing the Court to proceed directly to hearing the merits. Chief Justice Marshall established that procedural rules may be relaxed when doing so serves justice and prevents unnecessary delays without prejudicing any party's rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Justice Baldwin was of opinion, that in a cause of this soft, the court ought not to dispense with the regular course of proceedings,- by the granting and service of a rule to show cause.
Mi' Chief Justice Marshall said, that the grant of a rule to show cause and the service thereof, is a matter in the discretion of the court. The court may, ip its discretion, grant an alternative mandamus, if it deems it more conducive to public justice, and to-prevent delays. Here all the parties express themselves ready to proceed in the cause. The district judge waives any formal rule and notice, and wishes no delay; and states his readiness now to show cause. .Under such circumstances, all the purposes of a? rule to show cause and notice are ..accomplished, and there is no-necessity for directing such a rulé and notice. The coürt, therefore, in my opinion, may properly proceed.at once tó.the hearing of the causej for. the purpose,of ascertaining whether a mandamus ought or ought not to be awardéd.
The other judges concurred in the opinion of the chief justice; and the court directed the motion to come up on the-next motion day; .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ex parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1918)
-
Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1914)…r interlocutory or final, made in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction, especially where in regular course the decision may be reviewed upon a writ of error or an appeal. Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, 1 Pet. 567; Life and Fire Insurance Co. v. Adams, 9 Pet. 571, 602; Ex parte Taylor, 14 How. 3, 13; Ex parte Many, Id. 24; Ex parte Newman, 14 Wall. 152, 169; Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235; Ex parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 348; Ex parte Loring, Id. 418; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794; Ex parte Baltimore & Ohio…
-
Rapp v. Honorable Francis L. VAN Dusen, 350 F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1965)…. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185 (1943). See also United States Alkali Export Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 202, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 89 L.Ed. 1554 1945). . Life & Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Adams, 9 Pet. (34 U.S.) 571, 9 L.Ed. 233 (1835). See High, Extraordinary Remedies (3d ed. 1896), § 56. . See In re Watkins, 271 F. 2d 771, 76 A.L.R.2d 1113 (5 Cir. 1959); Hartley Pen Co. v. U.S. District Court, 287 F. 2d 324 (9 Cir. 1961). . La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 259…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence