In re Coleman

S.D. New York

In re Coleman

131 F. 151, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193

DecidedJune 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 131 F. 151 (In re Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Coleman, 131 F. 151, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193 (S.D.N.Y. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

It is well settled that the United States courts can only grant a mandamus in aid of an existing jurisdiction. It is usually granted to enforce the collection of a judgment. In this case this court, as a court of bankruptcy, has made an order authorizing [152]*152a receiver in bankruptcy to carry on for a short time the busfnes's of publishing a newspaper, with a view of preserving its good will as an asset of the bankrupt estate. Under these circumstances I should hesitate to hold without further consideration that this court would have no power in a proper case to issue a mandamus in furtherance of the order in bankruptcy to carry on the business. But I think in this case the general principle applies that a mandamus will not be issued to interfere with the legitimate discretion of an executive officer. The postmaster, by direction of the Postmaster General, under the statute, has prohibited the circulation through the mails of the paper in question as unmailable matter. The question whether the contents of the publication in question come within the prohibition of the statute is one upon which there might be a difference of opinion, but the articles and pictures in the paper which are objected to are of such a character that, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the postmaster, in deciding that it is unmailable, has abused his discretion.

I think, under these circumstances, that the motion must be denied.

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

HOLT, District Judge.

It is well settled that the United States courts can only grant a mandamus in aid of an existing jurisdiction. It is usually granted to enforce the collection of a judgment. In this case this court, as a court of bankruptcy, has made an order authorizing [152]*152a receiver in bankruptcy to carry on for a short time the busfnes's of publishing a newspaper, with a view of preserving its good will as an asset of the bankrupt estate. Under these circumstances I should hesitate to hold without further consideration that this court would have no power in a proper case to issue a mandamus in furtherance of the order in bankruptcy to carry on the business. But I think in this case the general principle applies that a mandamus will not be issued to interfere with the legitimate discretion of an executive officer. The postmaster, by direction of the Postmaster General, under the statute, has prohibited the circulation through the mails of the paper in question as unmailable matter. The question whether the contents of the publication in question come within the prohibition of the statute is one upon which there might be a difference of opinion, but the articles and pictures in the paper which are objected to are of such a character that, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the postmaster, in deciding that it is unmailable, has abused his discretion.

I think, under these circumstances, that the motion must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 F. 151, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coleman-nysd-1904.