Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank

U.S. Circuit Court

Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank

30 F. 602, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485

DecidedMarch 1, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. 602 (Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fairbanks v. Amoskeag Nat. Bank, 30 F. 602, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485 (uscirct 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Colt, J.

I am satisfied that the motion to quash must prevail, upon the grounds — First, of want of notice on the part of the defendants; and, second, because the writ is irregular in form, it being a compound writ of mandamus and certiorari. These two objections are so clear on reason and authority that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them.

The rule is well established in this country that no peremptory mandamus shall issue without notice in some form to the defendant, or a waiver of notice by an appearance. The wisdom of this rule is well illustrated in this case; for surely this court ought not to command a judge of tho district court (assuming it has the power in such a case) to do that which he says would be false, without notice to him, and opportunity to be fully heard.

As to tho second ground, there seems to be no precedent for combining writs of certiorari and mandamus. Each being distinct, and having its prescribed functions, it would be irregular to join both in one writ. Such a course may lead to much confusion, for rules which apply to one writ may not apply to the oilier; whereas, if each is kept distinct, wo can deal with it according to the rules of procedure which are applicable to it.

Motion to quash sustained.

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

Colt, J.

I am satisfied that the motion to quash must prevail, upon the grounds — First, of want of notice on the part of the defendants; and, second, because the writ is irregular in form, it being a compound writ of mandamus and certiorari. These two objections are so clear on reason and authority that it is unnecessary to enlarge upon them.

The rule is well established in this country that no peremptory mandamus shall issue without notice in some form to the defendant, or a waiver of notice by an appearance. The wisdom of this rule is well illustrated in this case; for surely this court ought not to command a judge of tho district court (assuming it has the power in such a case) to do that which he says would be false, without notice to him, and opportunity to be fully heard.

As to tho second ground, there seems to be no precedent for combining writs of certiorari and mandamus. Each being distinct, and having its prescribed functions, it would be irregular to join both in one writ. Such a course may lead to much confusion, for rules which apply to one writ may not apply to the oilier; whereas, if each is kept distinct, wo can deal with it according to the rules of procedure which are applicable to it.

Motion to quash sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. 602, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairbanks-v-amoskeag-nat-bank-uscirct-1887.