Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney

Third Circuit

Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney

286 F.2d 170, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 582, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 1961

Docket13483

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 286 F.2d 170 (Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney, 286 F.2d 170, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 582, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5522 (3d Cir. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for mandamus brought against one of the district *171 judges for the District of New Jersey. The allegation complains that the district judge unduly restricted the applicant in his interrogatories in a pending litigation and that he acted contrary to what one of his fellow judges had ordered on the same point. We think that this is not a proper case for mandamus. TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 3 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 711. This Court has said many times that mandamus is not to be taken as a substitute for appeal. E. g., Green v. Murphy, 3 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 591. The district judge was acting in a ease which was before him and the action he took was within his authority. If he was wrong the error can be corrected on appeal. The petition will be denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for mandamus brought against one of the district *171 judges for the District of New Jersey. The allegation complains that the district judge unduly restricted the applicant in his interrogatories in a pending litigation and that he acted contrary to what one of his fellow judges had ordered on the same point. We think that this is not a proper case for mandamus. TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 3 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 711. This Court has said many times that mandamus is not to be taken as a substitute for appeal. E. g., Green v. Murphy, 3 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 591. The district judge was acting in a ease which was before him and the action he took was within his authority. If he was wrong the error can be corrected on appeal. The petition will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 F.2d 170, 4 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 582, 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 5522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byram-concretanks-inc-v-honorable-thomas-f-meaney-ca3-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack