Ex parte Loring
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Parties | EX PARTE LORING |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
PETITION for a mandamus to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
This petition shows that at the June Term, 1874, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, William B. True, the plaintiff in an action then pending in that court against Elisha T. Loring, the petitioner, after a jury had been empanelled and the testimony on his part concluded, elected to become nonsuit, and that a judgment to that effect was entered. On the 17th October, 1876, at a subsequent term of the court, after notice to the attorney of Loring, True moved to set aside this judgment and restore the cause to the docket for trial. This motion was granted Oct. 31, and, later in the term, Loring appeared by his co nsel, and moved to vacate the order then made. This last motion was refused, Jan. 15, 1877, and, Jan. 29, this petition was filed by Loring for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court, requiring them 'to vacate the order setting aside said nonsuit.'
Mr. Alfred Russell for the petitioner.
No opposing counsel.
It seems clear to us that the object in this case is to use the writ of mandamus as a writ of error. This cannot be done. We may require the Circuit Court to decide in a proper case if it refuses to act, but cannot control its decision. Here the court has acted, and given its decision upon a motion made. We are asked now to require it to reverse that decision. For that, resort must be had to a writ of error after a final judgment has been rendered. The writ of mandamus has no such office to perform.
Petition denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
...631; cf. In re New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co., 155 U.S. 523, 531, 15 S.Ct. 183, 186, 39 L.Ed. 246, or denying a nonsuit, Ex parte Loring, 94 U.S. 418, 24 L.Ed. 165, despite the inconvenience to petitioner of being forced to proceed to trial in advance of a review of the court's action. Ex p......
-
State ex rel. Harris v. Laughlin
...Rhodes v. Craig, 21 Cal. 419; Re Turner, 5 Ohio 542; Floral Springs Co. v. Rives, 14 Nev. 431; Ex parte The State, 51 Ala. 69; Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418; Ex parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 348; Gunn v. County of Pulaski, 3 Ark. 427; State v. Smith, 19 Wis. 531; Brem v. Arkansas Co. Ct., 9 Ark. ......
- First Nat. Bank of Estherville v. City Council of Estherville
-
In re Hawkins. No. ____
...in rendering the opinion, said, at page 241: 'Mandamus cannot be issued to perform the office of an appeal or writ of error. Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418; Ex parte Flippen, Id. 350. The circuit court had jurisdiction of the action and of the parties for the purpose of trying the title of t......