United States v. Washington
This text of 28 F. Cas. 414 (United States v. Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(nem. con.) declined hearing the counsel on the other side upon the-question whether the writ of mandamus, was the proper remedy, being clearly of opinion that it was, and that the levy court had1 authority, under the act of congress, to-ascertain the cost; and requested the counsel for the mandamus to show that the-proceedings of the levy court were conformable to the act of congress.
THE COURT said that, if the case was-ready for a peremptory mandamus (It being understood that the counsel on both.sides had agreed that the case should now be considered as if it were heard upon a-retum of a mandamus nisi),' a peremptory-mandamus should issue. The matter was afterwards settled between the parties.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
28 F. Cas. 414, 2 Cranch 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-washington-circtddc-1819.