In Re Burdett

Supreme Court

In Re Burdett

127 U.S. 771, 8 S. Ct. 1394, 32 L. Ed. 321, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2037

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 16, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 127 U.S. 771 (In Re Burdett) 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

In Re Burdett, 127 U.S. 771, 8 S. Ct. 1394, 32 L. Ed. 321, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2037 (1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Miller

: A petition on the part of H. S. Burdett and others, asking for a mandamus against the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United-States for the Eastern District of Michigan, has been presented to us. The case arises out of an action of replevin in which the Circuit Court decided that it had no jurisdiction. A proceeding was then had to get damages for the taking of the goods in replevin, which the court entertained and rendered judgment for the damages. The amount in controversy is too small to come to this court by writ of error, and we are asked by the writ of mandamus to direct the judge of that court to set aside the judgment which he rendered. Whether there was error in that matter or not, we do not think that we have any power by writ of mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse his own judgment.

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

Me. Justice Miller

: A petition on the part of H. S. Burdett and others, asking for a mandamus against the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United-States for the Eastern District of Michigan, has been presented to us. The case arises out of an action of replevin in which the Circuit Court decided that it had no jurisdiction. A proceeding was then had to get damages for the taking of the goods in replevin, which the court entertained and rendered judgment for the damages. The amount in controversy is too small to come to this court by writ of error, and we are asked by the writ of mandamus to direct the judge of that court to set aside the judgment which he rendered. Whether there was error in that matter or not, we do not think that we have any power by writ of mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse his own judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 U.S. 771, 8 S. Ct. 1394, 32 L. Ed. 321, 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burdett-scotus-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack