EX PARTE THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD COMPANY
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 Milwaukee Railroad Company sought mandamus to compel a district judge to approve a bond that was otherwise proper but lacked sureties residing within the district. The Supreme Court declined to issue mandamus but instead exercised its appellate jurisdiction to issue a supersedeas, allowing the railroad to stay proceedings in the lower court by filing a $50,000 bond approved by the Court's clerk within thirty days. The decision established that while the Court would not compel a judge's discretionary approval of a bond based on surety residence alone, it could use its appellate powers to stay lower court proceedings when circumstances justified such relief.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
Although this court does not concur in the opinion of the district judge, that the fact of the non-residence of the sure ties within the district is a sufficient reason for rejecting a bond which is in all other respects unobjectionable, we are not inclined to interfere by mandamus with the discretion of that judge in approving or rejecting a bond offered for his approval. If we had the right to do this, which is extremely doubtful, it is unnecessary, as the remedy which is in our own hands is ample. The case being properly in this court by appeal, we have, by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, a right to issue any writ which may be necessary to render our appellate jurisdiction effectual. For this purpose the writ of supersedeas is eminently proper in a cas'e where the circumstances justify it, as we think they do in the present instance. Hardeman v. Anderson,
*
is an example of the exercise of this power precisely in point.
We shall therefore make an order, that upon the filing of a bond for the sum of $50,000, with the usual conditions, at any time within thirty days from this date, which shall be approved by the clerk of this court, a supersedeas will issue from this court to the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin, and to the marshal of the United States for said district, commanding a stay of proceedings on said decree until the further order of this court,
The same.being superseded.
*
4 Howard, 640.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hudson v. Parker, 156 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1895)…heir respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 14; 1 Stat. 81, 82; Rev. Stat. § 716; Stockton v. Bishop, 2 How. 74; Hardeman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640; Ex parte Milwaukee Railroad, 5 Wall. 188. Under the first judiciary' act, this court had power “ to make and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting of business ” in all the courts of the United States. Act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, § 17; 1 Stat. 83. And successive st…1 / 2
-
In re Claasen, 140 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1891)…wer to issue all writs not [*208] specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. Handyman v. Anderson, 4 How. 640; Ex parte Milwaukee Railroad Co., 5 Wall. 188. We are of opinion, however, that a justice of this court had authority not only to allow the writ of error, but also to grant the supersedeas. By section 1000 of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that every justice or judge signing a citation o…
-
Omaha & Council Bluffs St. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 222 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1911)…Per Curiam: Upon the authority of Revised Statutes, § 716; Ex parte Milwaukee Railroad Co., 5 Wall. 188; Leonard v. Ozark Co., 115 U. S. 465, 468; In re Classen, 140 U. S. 200, 207; In re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 549; United States v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 573; and upon full consideration of the facts bearing upon the propriety of the appellants’ moti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence