Ex Parte the Milwaukee Railroad Co.

72 U.S. 188, 18 L. Ed. 676, 5 Wall. 188, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 931
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 13, 1867
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 72 U.S. 188 (Ex Parte the Milwaukee Railroad Co.) 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.

Bluebook
Ex Parte the Milwaukee Railroad Co., 72 U.S. 188, 18 L. Ed. 676, 5 Wall. 188, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 931 (1867).

Opinion

72 U.S. 188 (____)
5 Wall. 188

EX PARTE THE MILWAUKEE RAILROAD COMPANY.

Supreme Court of United States.

*189 Messrs. Cram and Cushing, in favor of petition; Mr. Cary, contra.

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

Although this court does not concur in the opinion of the district judge, that the fact of the non-residence of the sureties *190 within the district is a sufficient reason for rejecting a bond which is in all other respects unobjectionable, we are not inclined to interfere by mandamus with the discretion of that judge in approving or rejecting a bond offered for his approval. If we had the right to do this, which is extremely doubtful, it is unnecessary, as the remedy which is in our own hands is ample. The case being properly in this court by appeal, we have, by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, a right to issue any writ which may be necessary to render our appellate jurisdiction effectual. For this purpose the writ of supersedeas is eminently proper in a case where the circumstances justify it, as we think they do in the present instance. Hardeman v. Anderson,[*] is an example of the exercise of this power precisely in point.

We shall therefore make an order, that upon the filing of a bond for the sum of $50,000, with the usual conditions, at any time within thirty days from this date, which shall be approved by the clerk of this court, a supersedeas will issue from this court to the judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin, and to the marshal of the United States for said district, commanding a stay of proceedings on said decree until the further order of this court,

THE SAME BEING SUPERSEDED.

NOTES

[*] 4 Howard, 640.

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

Related

Garland v. Tanksley
107 S.E.2d 866 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Wehrman v. Moore
177 Iowa 542 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1916)
Omaha & CB St. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Comm.
222 U.S. 582 (Supreme Court, 1911)
Boston & M. R. v. Gokey
150 F. 686 (D. Vermont, 1907)
ALEXANDER McKENZIE
180 U.S. 536 (Supreme Court, 1901)
New England R. v. Hyde
101 F. 397 (First Circuit, 1900)
Hudson v. Parker
156 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Gunn v. Black
60 F. 159 (Eighth Circuit, 1894)
In Re Claasen
140 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Bradley v. Galt
16 D.C. 317 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1886)
Taylor v. Life Ass'n
3 F. 465 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 U.S. 188, 18 L. Ed. 676, 5 Wall. 188, 1866 U.S. LEXIS 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-the-milwaukee-railroad-co-scotus-1867.