UNITED STATES
v.
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 Supreme Court held that a certiorari was improper to obtain factual findings from the Court of Claims, but remanded the case with an order requiring the lower court to make specific factual determinations regarding whether claimants had submitted claims to a designated commission before or after seizure of their books and papers. The Court established that when a party seeks additional factual findings from a lower court, the proper remedy is a direct order requiring the court to certify those facts rather than certiorari, which is limited to bringing up missing documents or writings from the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
Whilst we are of opinion that the appellants are entitled to have the finding made complete on the points indicated by the interrogatories, either affirmatively or negatively, we do not regard a certiorari as the proper mode of effecting the object. This writ is properly used to bring up to the court of error, on an allegation of diminution, outbranches of the record, or other documents and writings in the court below which have not been previously certified or sent. The facts asked for in this case are not documents or writings, but conclusions to be deduced from the evidence before the Court of Claims. The proper method of obtaining a finding in reference to these alleged facts is an order of this court, to be directed to the court below, on motion duly made, requiring that court to make return as to the existence or nonexistence of such facts. Such an order it will be proper to make, for the same reason that renders a certiorari proper on an allegation of diminution of the record. But we cannot give the Court of Claims any directions as to what finding it shall make, or how it shall proceed to make up its finding on the points in question. If that court should refuse, with the proper evidence before it, to find a material fact desired by either of the parties, the proper remedy would be to make a request that such finding be made, and to except in case of refusal. Perhaps an additional rule on the subject would make the rights of parties and the duty of the court less ambiguous than they now are. The following order will be made in the case:
Ordered : That the record in this case be remanded to the Court of Claims, and that said court be instructed to find and certify to this court, as matters of fact, in addition to the facts found and certified in said record—
First. Whether or not, before the seizure of the books and papers of the claimants, as found by the said court, the claims of the claimants had been submitted or presented by them to the commission, consisting of Hon. David Davis, Joseph Holt, and Hugh Campbell, referred to in the record.
Second. Whether or not the said claims were so submitted or presented after such seizure.
Third. Whether or not the said claimants appeared before the said commission with witnesses to support their said cla.ms; and, if they did so appear, whether or not it was before or after the seizure of their books and papers by the provost guard of St. Louis.
And it is further ordered that the said record, with the said additional findings of fact, be returned to this court with
Add convenient speed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1906)…liary process only, to supply imperfections in the record of a case already before it; and not, like a writ of error, to review the judgment of an inferior court. Barton v. Petit, 7 Cranch, 288; Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503; United States v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661; United States v. Young, 94 U. S. 258; Luxton v. North River Bridge, 141 U. S. 337, 341.” In In re Chetwood, Petitioner, 165 U. S. 443, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller said (pp. 461, 462): “ By section 14 of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, 1 Sta…
-
Am. Constr. Co. v. Jacksonville, 148 U.S. 372 (U.S. 1893)…liary process only, to supply imperfections in the record of a case already before it; and not, like a writ of error, to review the judgment-of an inferior court. Barton v. Petit, 7 Cranch, 288; Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503; United States v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661; United States v. Young, 94 U. S. 258; Luxton v. North River Bridge, 147 U. S. 337, 341. There is, therefore, no ground for issuing either a writ of mandamus, or a writ of certiorari, as prayed for in these petitions, unless it be found in the act…
-
United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 299 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1936)…3, 395. Botany Mills v. United States, 278 U. S. 282, 290. United States v. Wells, 283 U. S. 102, 120. United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101, 110, 111. Cf. Indiana Farmer’s Guide Co. v. Prairie Farmer Co., 293 U. S. 268, 281. United States v. Adams, 9 Wall. 661, 663. Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373, 395-396. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 258 TJ. S. 374, 377. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 296, 303. Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 539. United States…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence