Ex parte Hughes, Petitioner
Decision Date | 06 April 1885 |
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 823,114 U.S. 147,29 L.Ed. 134 |
Parties | Ex parte HUGHES, Petitioner |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John H. Mitchell, for petitioner.
J. N. Dolph, for respondent.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus requiring Matthew P. Deady, judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Oregon, to 'forthwith sign and execute, by signing or countersigning, any and all such orders, matters, and things as may be requisite or necessary to enable your petitioner (Ellis G. Hughes, an attorney at law, practicing in the circuit and district courts of the United States for such district) to withdraw from the depositary of said court the sum of five hundred dollars belonging to him.' The petition for the writ, which is sworn to by the petitioner, states that on and prior to May 3, 1882, there was pending in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Oregon a suit in equity for the foreclosure of a mortgage in which William Reid, manager, was plaintiff and H. McCallister and W. B. McCallister defendants, and that the plaintiff therein 'recovered in said suit a certain decree as against the defendants, * * * and a certain order of sale, wherein and whereby it was ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendants * * * should pay to the plaintiff a certain sum of money, and interest as therein specified, and also the costs and disbursements in the suit to be taxed, 'including ten per cent. on the full amount due from the defendants * * * to the complainant, as an attorney's fee to the attorney of the complainant,' and that, in default of such payment being made, certain lands in said decree and order of sale set out and described be sold.'
The petition further states 'that your petitioner, as the attorney of the plaintiff, by express agreement, and by the express terms and conditions of said decree and order of sale, was the absoluted and unconditional owner of the attorney's fee recovered therein and thereby as costs of the suit.' It is then stated that a sale of the mortgaged property was made under the decree, and 'the amount due your petitioner under said decree and order of sale, as and for his attorney's fee, * * * having been regularly ascertained and determined, the said purchaser at said sale paid to the clerk of the circuit court, * * * as and for and in payment of the claim of your petitioner for his attorney's fee, * * * the full amount so as aforesaid ascertained and determined to be due to your petitioner therefor...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Nelson v. Nelson
-
Katsh v. Rafferty
...250, 94 N. Y. S. 290; Bayard v. United States ex rel. White, 127 U. S. 246, 250, 8 S. Ct. 1223, 32 L. Ed. 116; Ex parte Hughes, 114 U. S. 147, 5 S. Ct. 823, 29 L. Ed. 134. This proceeding is instituted for the purpose of securing a writ of mandamus, and although there is a prayer for such o......
-
In re Haight & Freese Co.
... ... 689] ... Franklin ... Bien, I. R. Clark, and G. F. Ordway, for petitioner ... Before ... COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge ... and directions given for taxing the same in Ex parte Hughes, ... 114 U.S. 147, 148, 5 Sup.Ct. 823, 29 L.Ed. 134. There the ... order to show cause was ... ...