Ex Parte Brown and Another
This text of 116 U.S. 401 (Ex Parte Brown and Another) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
6 S.Ct. 387
29 L.Ed. 676
Ex parte BROWN and another, Petitioners.
Filed January 18, 1886.
J. H. Mitchell, for the motion.
WAITE, C. J.
This motion is denied. According to the petition, the court entertained jurisdiction of the cause, but dismissed it for want of due prosecution; that is to say, because errors had not been assigned in accordance with the rules of practice applicable to the form of the action. This is a judgment which can only be reviewed by writ of error or appeal, as the case may be. Mandamus lies to compel a court to take jurisdiction in a proper case, but not to control its discretion while acting within its jurisdiction. This rule is elementary. Ex parte Morgan, 114 U. S. 174, S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825, and cases cited.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
116 U.S. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-brown-and-another-scotus-1886.