Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

be allowed in all cases authorized by the State statute.8 Amendments are rarely allowed to the plaintiff in penal actions and actions to enforce forfeitures.9

$ 456. Writs of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is a writ issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction, and directed to an inferior court for the purpose of preventing the inferior tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction to which it is not entitled. A writ of prohibition is a civil proceeding even when designed to stop a criminal proceeding.?

The Supreme Court has power to issue writs of prohibition to the District Courts of the United States when proceeding as courts of admiralty. In a similar case a writ of prohibition may issue to the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska. The writ has been issued to forbid the admission of new libellants without the service of process by them. Where the court of admiralty has jurisdiction of the vessel sued and of the subject-matter, the Supreme Court will not interfere to correct an error in the decision, even upon a question as to the validity of a statute.7

The Supreme Court has ordinarily no power to issue a writ of prohibition in any other case, except when necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction in some matter before it; 8 or pos

8 Leman y. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 128 Fed. 111.

9 U. S. v. Batchelder, 9 Int. Rev. Rec. 98.

$ 456. 1 High on Extraordinary Remedies, $ 782.

The history of the writ of prohibition is well described in a letter by Professor Theodore W. Dwight to the New York Tribune, in reference to Re Cooper, 138 U. S. 44, 34 L. ed. 993, published Jan. 19, 1891, reprinted in the fourth edi. tion of this treatise, $ 362.

2 Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 113, 32 L. ed. 616, 618; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 29 L. ed. 601.

8 U. S. R. S., $ 688; Ex parte

Phoenix Ins. Co., 118 U. S. 610, 30
L. ed. 274.

4 Re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404, 34 L. ed. 993.

5 Ex parte Indiana Construction Co., 244 U. S. 456.

6 Ex parte Gordon, 105 U. S. 515, 26 L. ed. 953; Ex parte Hagar, 104 U. S. 520, 26 L. ed. 816; Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174, 27 L. ed. 894; Re Fassett, 142 U. S. 479, 484, 35 L. ed. 1087, 1088; Re Engles, 146 U. S. 357, 36 L. ed. 1004; Re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14, 37 L. ed. 60.

7 Ex parte Pennsylvania, 109 U. S. 174, 27 L. ed. 894.

8 Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503, 17 L. ed. 134; Re Christy, 3 How.

sibly when an application is made by a State, public minister, or consul,9 but the writ has been granted to prevent a single judge from settling a decree upon a mandate of the Supreme Court under “The Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.” 10 When a State is the relator the writ issues only when the respondents are aliens or citizens of another State. 11

The Circuit Courts of Appeals cannot issue writs of prohibition, except where that writ is necessary for the efficient administration of the particular jurisdiction for which they are invested ; 12 and when an appeal or writ of error is pending, or an attempt to take such an appeal or sue out such a writ has been made.13 They cannot issue the writ when a writ of error or appeal is merely contemplated 14 nor to prevent a judge from hearing a cause in which it is claimed that he is interested.15

A Circuit Court af Appeals cannot issue a writ of prohibition to prevent a District Court from acting where the latter has no jurisdiction over the subject matter; 16 since the former court would have no jurisdiction to review such a case.17 The writ may issue from a Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent a District Judge from granting a new trial after his jurisdiction has expired,18 and from requiring certain persons to become parties to a suit and interplead.19 In both these cases the jurisdiction of the court which issued the writ had been invoked.

292, 11 L. ed. 603; Ex parte Warmouth, 17 Wall.. 64, 21 L. ed. 543; Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541, 19 L. ed. 981; Re Massachusetts, 197 U. $. 482, 49 L. ed. 845.

9 Re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403, 34 L. ed. 222.

10 Ex parte U. S., 226 U. S. 420, 57 L. ed. 281.

11 Re Massachusetts, 197 U. S 482, 49 L. ed. 222.

12 U. S. v. Williams, C. C. A., 67 Fed. 384; Re Paquet, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 437; Zell v. Judges, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 86; Hammond Lumber Co. v. U. S. District Court, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 924.

Fed. Prac. Vol. III-4

13 U. S. v. Williams, C. C. A., 67 Fed. 384; Re Paquet, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 437; Zell v. Judges, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 86.

14 Zell v. Judges, C. C. A., 149 Fed. 86.

15 Re Paquet, C. C. A., 114 Fed. 437.

16 Hammond Lumber Co. v. U. S. District Court, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 924.

17 See infra, $ 693.
18 U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55.

19 Ex Parte Equitable Trust Co., C. C. A., 231 Fed. 571, 594.

No District Court of the United States has the power to issue a writ of prohibition except when necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction in some matter previously before it.20

It seems that the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has the power to issue writs of prohibition directed to inferior courts and to public boards and officers acting in a quasi judicial capacity within its territorial jurisdiction.21 It is doubtful whether any court has the power to issue a writ of prohibition against a court-martial.22

Where the court against which the writ is sought has clearly no jurisdiction of the suit or prosecution originally issued before it or of some collateral matter arising therein, and the defendant has objected to its jurisdiction at the outset, and has no other remedy; the writ of prohibition should issue, 23 and a refusal to grant a writ, where all the proceedings appear of record, may be reviewed by a writ of error.24

Where the jurisdiction of the court is doubtful, or depends on facts which are not made matter of record, or where the application is made by a stranger, the grant or refusal of the writ is discretionary ; 25 and it is not obligatory where the case has gone to sentence and the want of jurisdiction does not appear upon the face of the proceedings.26

20 U. S. R. S., § 716; Re Bininger, 7 Blatchf. 159.

21 See argument of Messrs. Jeff. Chandler and Eppa Houston, in Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; Act of Feb. 27, 1827, ch. 69, $ 2 (19 St. at L. 253); U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 L. ed. 167; Price v. State, 8 Gill (Md.), 295, 310.

22 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 175, 29 L. ed. 601, 603; U. S. v. Maney, 61 Fed. 140.

23 Re- Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198; Re N. Y. & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 39 L. ed. 246, Lehman v. Gumbel, 236 U. S. 448, affirming the issue by a State court of a writ of prohibition against an

inferior court of the same State which relegated the parties to the court of bankruptcy.

24 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; U. S. v. Mayer, 235 U. S. 55.

25 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198; Re N. Y. & Porto Rico S. S. Co., 155 U. S. 523, 39 L. ed. 246. Re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495, 36 L. ed. 232, 239; Am. Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 379, 37 L. ed. 486. Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431; Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Ferguson, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 756.

26 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 173, 29 L. ed. 601, 602; Re

The writ will not issue when the relator has another adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise ; 27 for example, to set aside an injunction 28 or to prevent a District Court from taking jurisdiction of a suit against a non-resident.29 The requirement of a bond upon an appeal does not justify the issue of the writ.30 The writ will not issue to control the decision of the court below upon questions which such court is competent to decide.31 Nor to correct an erroneous taxation of costs.32

The usual practice is, upon an application, regularly called a suggestion, in the name of the United States on the relation of the party aggrieved, for the court to grant a rule to the judge sought to be prohibited, to show cause why the writ should not issue, and to accompany the rule with an order that he proceed no further in the case till the decision of the upper court in the premises.33 It has been said that when the suit complained of is brought by a private person he may be joined as a defendant; but that when it is a suit or prosecution on behalf of the government the writ of prohibition can go to the court only 34 The proceedings of a court-martial cannot be prohibited by such a writ addressed to an officer who ordered the court-martial to convene, but is not himself a member of it.85 The application for the writ should be supported by an affidavit where the motion for the writ of prohibition is founded upon matter not appearing upon the face of the proceeding below.36 It is the duty of the respondent to produce any evidence that exists to countervail the petitioner's proof of such new matter.37

The respondent to the application should be the judge and

Cooper, 143 U. S. 472, 495, 36 L. ed. 232, 239; Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 403, 39 L. ed. 198, 201.

27 Re Rice, 155 U. S. 396, 39 L. ed. 198. Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431.

28 Ex parte Oklahoma, 220 U. S. 191, 55 L. ed. 431.

29 Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. 449, 461, 51 L. ed. 264, 268.

80 Alexander v. Crollot, 199 U. S. 580, 50 L. ed. 317.

32 Re Peterson, 253 U. S. 300; · Pope Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., C. C. A., 208 Fed. 406.

33 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L. ed. 354.

34 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 176, 29 L. ed. 601, 603, per Gray, J.

35 Ibid.

36 Re Baiz, 135 U. S. 403, 430, 34 L. ed. 222, 230, per Fuller, C. J.

31 Ex parte Southwestern Surety Ins. Co., 247 U. S. 20.

37 Ibid.

tion, 41

not the parties interested in upholding the order.88 The return should be made by him and not by them.89

After the time for the return as expired a return may be filed by permission of the court. 40

The writ of prohibition cannot be used to correct errors of a court in deciding matters of law or fact within its jurisdic

nor to undo what has been done; nor after a cause is finished below.43 The denial of the writ is not an adjudication that the court below had jurisdiction of the suit or proceeding. 44

“The only effect of the writ is to suspend all action, and to prevent any further proceeding in the prohibited direction.”: 46

8 457. The writ of mandamus. In general. The writ of mandamus is a command issued in the name of the United States, directed to a person, corporation, or court within its jurisdiction, requiring the respondent to do some particular thing therein specified which pertains to its office or duty.1

A mandamus will issue to compel a court to exercise its discretion in one way or another. The writ will issue to compel a court to proceed in a case which it has dismissed for want of jurisdiction, when the record before the lower court shows its jurisdiction, and there is no review by appeal or writ of error; but not when through mistake a paper showing the jurisdiction

[ocr errors]

38 Ex parte Indiana Transportation Co., 242 U. S. 281.

39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.

41 Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 176, 29 L. ed. 601, 603.

42 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L. ed. 354.

43 Ex parte Joins, 191 U. S. 93, 48 L. ed. 110.

44 Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Ferguson, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 756.

46 U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall. 158, 18 L. ed. 354.

$ 457. 1 Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 189, 190, 8 L. ed. 92, 93.

2 Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 189, 190, 8 L. ed. 92, 93; Ex parte Mor. gan, 114 U. S. 174, 29 L. ed. 135;

Ex parte Parker, 120 U. S. 737, 30 L. ed. 818; Re Hohorst, 150 U. S. 653, 37 L. ed. 1211.

3 Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258, 21 L. ed. 493; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507, 23 L. ed. 103; Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4, 24 L. ed. 34; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 24 L. ed. 853; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794, 26 L. ed. 461; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U. S. 566, 27 L. ed. 812; Hollon Parker, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 221, 33 L. ed. 123. But see Re Burdett, 127 U. S. 711, 32 L. ed. 321. Re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 453, 34 L. ed. 738, 739.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »