City of Asbury Park, N. J. v. Christmas

Third Circuit

City of Asbury Park, N. J. v. Christmas

78 F.2d 1003, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJuly 22, 1935

Docket5823

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 78 F.2d 1003 (City of Asbury Park, N. J. v. Christmas) 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

City of Asbury Park, N. J. v. Christmas, 78 F.2d 1003, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920 (3d Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Assuming for present purposes the power of the court below in ordinary cases to issue a writ, of mandamus upon a municipality to aid a judgment creditor in enforcing such judgment, it still remains the law, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U. S. 308, 311, 38 S. Ct. 99, 101, 62 L. Ed. 309, that: “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedial process which .is awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. It issues' to remedy a wrong, not to promote one; to compel the performance of a duty which ought to be performed, not to direct an act which will work a public or private mischief or will be within the strict letter of the law but in disregard of its spirit.”

After due consideration, we are of opinion that sound judicial discretion does not warrant the exercise of such power ■at this time. In view of the efforts that are being made — we assume in good faith —by this municipality tp provide to the limit of its power for the equality of treatment to all bondholders, we vacate the mandamus order granted, but direct the court to retain jurisdiction of the petition for the present.

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

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

Assuming for present purposes the power of the court below in ordinary cases to issue a writ, of mandamus upon a municipality to aid a judgment creditor in enforcing such judgment, it still remains the law, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U. S. 308, 311, 38 S. Ct. 99, 101, 62 L. Ed. 309, that: “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedial process which .is awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. It issues' to remedy a wrong, not to promote one; to compel the performance of a duty which ought to be performed, not to direct an act which will work a public or private mischief or will be within the strict letter of the law but in disregard of its spirit.”

After due consideration, we are of opinion that sound judicial discretion does not warrant the exercise of such power ■at this time. In view of the efforts that are being made — we assume in good faith —by this municipality tp provide to the limit of its power for the equality of treatment to all bondholders, we vacate the mandamus order granted, but direct the court to retain jurisdiction of the petition for the present.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F.2d 1003, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-asbury-park-n-j-v-christmas-ca3-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack