Ex Parte Brown

Supreme Court

Ex Parte Brown

116 U.S. 401, 6 S. Ct. 387, 29 L. Ed. 676, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1775

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 18, 1886·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

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, and cases, cited.

Motion denied.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

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, and cases, cited.

Motion denied.

Ex Parte Brown, 116 U.S. 401, 6 S. Ct. 387, 29 L. Ed. 676, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1775 (1886).

Pincite

116 U.S. 401 (Ex Parte Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related