In Re Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Supreme Court

In Re Commonwealth of Massachusetts

197 U.S. 482, 25 S. Ct. 512, 49 L. Ed. 845, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1162

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 10, 1905

Docket15, Original

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 197 U.S. 482 (In Re Commonwealth of Massachusetts) 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 482, 25 S. Ct. 512, 49 L. Ed. 845, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1162 (1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

• This court has no original jurisdiction over this controversy, in any view, because it is not a controversy between a State and a citizen of another State. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395. And it has not appellate jurisdiction, because since the passage of the act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 434, c. 74, establishing the court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, this court, generally speaking, and not including cases arising under the bankruptcy law, Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, cannot review the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District, directly by appeal or writ of error. '

*488 By section 716 of the Revised Statutes, this court and the Circuit and District Courts “have power to issue all writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

By section 688, prohibition may issue “in the District Courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” but there is no similar provision in respect of other courts. And it has been repeatedly held, as to the Circuit Courts, that they have no power under section 716 to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, except when necessary in the exercise of their existing jurisdiction. Bath County v. Almy, 13 Wall. 244, 248; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 601.

This is equally true of this court, that is to say, that in cases over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdicT tion we cannot grant prohibition or mandamus or certiorari as ancillary thereto.

Rule discharged; petition denied.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

• This court has no original jurisdiction over this controversy, in any view, because it is not a controversy between a State and a citizen of another State. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Hooe v. Jamieson, 166 U. S. 395. And it has not appellate jurisdiction, because since the passage of the act of February 9, 1893, 27 Stat. 434, c. 74, establishing the court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, this court, generally speaking, and not including cases arising under the bankruptcy law, Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, cannot review the judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the District, directly by appeal or writ of error. '

*488 By section 716 of the Revised Statutes, this court and the Circuit and District Courts “have power to issue all writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

By section 688, prohibition may issue “in the District Courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” but there is no similar provision in respect of other courts. And it has been repeatedly held, as to the Circuit Courts, that they have no power under section 716 to issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, except when necessary in the exercise of their existing jurisdiction. Bath County v. Almy, 13 Wall. 244, 248; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 601.

This is equally true of this court, that is to say, that in cases over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdicT tion we cannot grant prohibition or mandamus or certiorari as ancillary thereto.

Rule discharged; petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 U.S. 482, 25 S. Ct. 512, 49 L. Ed. 845, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-commonwealth-of-massachusetts-scotus-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack