Graham v. Norton

Supreme Court

Graham v. Norton

82 U.S. 427, 21 L. Ed. 177, 15 Wall. 427, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1270

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 82 U.S. 427 (Graham v. Norton) 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

Graham v. Norton, 82 U.S. 427, 21 L. Ed. 177, 15 Wall. 427, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1270 (1873).

Pincite

Opinions

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Coui’t had jux’isdietion to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.

* This court has held that the wx'it may be xised for the purpose of enfoi’cing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Coux-t, where its use by the State court for that pux’pose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original pi’oceeding.

In the thirteenth section of the Judiciax’y Act this court is clothed with power to issue “ writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the pi'ocesses and usages of law to aixy courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.”† This express authority to issue writs of nxandamxis to National courts and officex-s has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers.‡ The only exception is that just adverted to, [429]*429where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.

The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy,* that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded with directions to

Dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 186.

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

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Coui’t had jux’isdietion to issue a writ of mandamus in this case.

* This court has held that the wx'it may be xised for the purpose of enfoi’cing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Coux-t, where its use by the State court for that pux’pose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original pi’oceeding.

In the thirteenth section of the Judiciax’y Act this court is clothed with power to issue “ writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the pi'ocesses and usages of law to aixy courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.”† This express authority to issue writs of nxandamxis to National courts and officex-s has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers.‡ The only exception is that just adverted to, [429]*429where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.

The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy,* that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded with directions to

Dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 186.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 U.S. 427, 21 L. Ed. 177, 15 Wall. 427, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-norton-scotus-1873.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack