United States Ex Rel. Vassel v. Durning

Second Circuit

United States Ex Rel. Vassel v. Durning

152 F.2d 455, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2302

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 30, 1945

Docket98

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 152 F.2d 455 (United States Ex Rel. Vassel v. Durning) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Ex Rel. Vassel v. Durning, 152 F.2d 455, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2302 (2d Cir. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment summarily dismissing the complaint in an action for a mandamus to compel the defendant — the Collector of Customs in the Port of New York — “to initiate steps for the reinstatement” of the relator as a customs guard. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which the district judge granted after a consideration of the merits. Although the New Rules have abolished the writ of mandamus (Rule 81(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c), the same relief may be had “by appropriate action or by appropriate motion”; and we disregard the error, which was only one of form. The difficulty goes deeper, for it is abundantly settled, as appears from the decisions cited *456 in the margin, * that district courts have no jurisdiction to grant such relief except as ancillary to the exercise of some independently conferred jurisdiction. Therefore, whatever may be the relator’s grievance, it is not justiciable before the courts, or at least it is not remediable by an order of reinstatement. The judgment was wrong in dismissing the complaint upon the merits; it should have done so for the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed for the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

*

McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 3 L. Ed. 420; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 5 L.Ed. 340; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 7 S.Ct. 633, 30 L.Ed. 743; Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. Railway Co., 197 U.S. 536, 25 S.Ct. 538, 49 L.Ed. 870; Covington & C. Bridge Company v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L. Ed. 111; Stevenson v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 625; Am-chanitzky v. Sinnott, 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 97; Mille v. McManigal, 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 644; Branham v. Langley, 4 Cir., 139 F.2d 115; Youngblood v. United States, 6 Cir., 141 F.2d 912, 915. The rule is otherwise in the District of Columbia. Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment summarily dismissing the complaint in an action for a mandamus to compel the defendant — the Collector of Customs in the Port of New York — “to initiate steps for the reinstatement” of the relator as a customs guard. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which the district judge granted after a consideration of the merits. Although the New Rules have abolished the writ of mandamus (Rule 81(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c), the same relief may be had “by appropriate action or by appropriate motion”; and we disregard the error, which was only one of form. The difficulty goes deeper, for it is abundantly settled, as appears from the decisions cited *456 in the margin, * that district courts have no jurisdiction to grant such relief except as ancillary to the exercise of some independently conferred jurisdiction. Therefore, whatever may be the relator’s grievance, it is not justiciable before the courts, or at least it is not remediable by an order of reinstatement. The judgment was wrong in dismissing the complaint upon the merits; it should have done so for the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed for the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

*

McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 3 L. Ed. 420; McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. 598, 5 L.Ed. 340; Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 7 S.Ct. 633, 30 L.Ed. 743; Knapp v. Lake Shore & M. S. Railway Co., 197 U.S. 536, 25 S.Ct. 538, 49 L.Ed. 870; Covington & C. Bridge Company v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 27 S.Ct. 24, 51 L. Ed. 111; Stevenson v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 625; Am-chanitzky v. Sinnott, 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 97; Mille v. McManigal, 2 Cir., 69 F.2d 644; Branham v. Langley, 4 Cir., 139 F.2d 115; Youngblood v. United States, 6 Cir., 141 F.2d 912, 915. The rule is otherwise in the District of Columbia. Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 F.2d 455, 1945 U.S. App. LEXIS 2302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-vassel-v-durning-ca2-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack