In Re Glaser

198 U.S. 171, 25 S. Ct. 653, 49 L. Ed. 1000, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1117
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 8, 1905
Docket16, Original
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 198 U.S. 171 (In Re Glaser) 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 Glaser, 198 U.S. 171, 25 S. Ct. 653, 49 L. Ed. 1000, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1117 (1905).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition by Gertrude'Glaser,; as administratrix, *172 for mandamus, requiring the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York to take jurisdiction and proceed against Anthony P. Langer in a certain suit alleged by petitioner to. be pending and undetermined in that court, wherein Gertrude Glaser,...as administratrix, is plaintiff,, and Anthony P. Langer is defendant, and to strike from the records of the court a certain order made on the fourteenth day of November, 1904, entitled: “ 'In the Matter of the Application, of Gertrude Glaser, Administratrix, &c., to compel the filing of an answer, or other relief, in an action alleged to be pending between Gertrude Glaser, as Administratrix, &c., of Isador Glaser, deceased, Plaintiff, and Anthony P. Langer, Defendant,’ whereby petitioner’s application to compel the filing of said answer was denied, on the ground that no such action was pending, and to make such disposition of said suit as ought to have teen made had said order not been made and entered therein . . .”

-The petition alleged the commencement in the-Circuit Court of a common law action by petitioner as administratrix against Langer, 'to recover damages for negligence causing the death of petitioner’s, husband, and rested the jurisdiction on diversity of, citizenship. The circumstances: in respect of a mistake, by reason of which no summons was issued, though service of copy was made, are set forth in detail, and the fact alleged of notice of appearance and answer, and the assertion by defendant’s attorney that this was in ignorance of the defect as to summons.

Leave to file the petition was granted, and this having been done,- a rule was entered therebto, to which the judge presiding in the Circuit Court, and before whom all the proceedings referred to in the petition were had, and by whom the decision was made, made due return, submitting his action in the premises, and certifying that his reasons for denying the motion were set forth irrtfre order, which is given at length. It appears therefrom-rthat the motion was denied “upon.the sole ground that no action of Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix of *173 the goods, chattels and credits of Isador 'Glaser, deceased, plaintiff, against Anthony P. Langer, defendant, is nor ever has. been pending in this court..”

In. cases, over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdiction; we cannot grant mandamus. Rev. Stat. § 716; In re Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Petitioner, 197 U. S. 482.

- Of course there is no pretense of original jurisdiction here, arid since the passage of the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, we have no jurisdiction to review the judgments or decrees of the District and Circuit Courts directly by appeal or writ of error in cases such as this case if pending in the Circuit Court.

Rule discharged. Petition denied.

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

Related

Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit
398 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Ex Parte Republic of Peru
318 U.S. 578 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Ex Parte United States
287 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Wabash Ry. Co. v. Woodrough
29 F.2d 832 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
Magnum Import Co. v. Coty
262 U.S. 159 (Supreme Court, 1923)
In re Macfarland
30 App. D.C. 365 (D.C. Circuit, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 U.S. 171, 25 S. Ct. 653, 49 L. Ed. 1000, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-glaser-scotus-1905.