Ex parte Morgan and another, Petitioners
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 825,114 U.S. 174,29 L.Ed. 135 |
Parties | Ex parte MORGAN and another, Petitioners |
Decision Date | 06 April 1885 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Edward Roby, for petitioner.
W. H. Calkins, A. C. Harris, and A. L. Osborne, for respondent.
WAITE, C. J. for a writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana to amend a judgment entered January 20, 1883, in a cause wherein the relators were plaintiffs, and Frederick Eggers, defendant, 'so as to conform to the complaint in said cause, and to the finding or verdict of the court rendered upon the trial of said cause.' The suit was ejectment to recover the possession of 'all of the north part of lot 2, in sec. 36, T. 38 N., R. 10 W. of the second principal meridian, which lies west of the track of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad, and north of a line parallel with the north line of said lot 2, and seven hundred and fifty-three feet south therefrom.' The judgment entry, which includes the only finding in the case, is as follows: After this entry the petitioner moved the court to amend and reform the judgment so that it would 'conform to the complaint in said court and to the finding or verdict;' but the court, on full consideration, decided that the finding and judgment were not separate and distinct, and that the meaning was clear. The entry was to be construed as finding and adjudging that the plaintiffs were only entitled to recover the possession of so much of the premises sued for as lies south of the fence indicated. For this reason the motion was denied.
It is an elementary rule that a writ of mandamus may be used to require an inferior court to decide a matter within its jurisdiction and pending before it for judicial determination, but not to control the decision. Ex parte Flippin, 94 U. S. 350; Ex parte Railway Co. 101 U. S. 720; Ex parte Burtis, 103 U S. 238. Here a judgment has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass
...of review where a statutory method of appeal has been prescribed or to review an appealable decision of record. Ex parte Morgan, 114 U.S. 174, 175, 5 S.Ct. 825, 29 L.Ed. 135; In re Atlantic City R. Co., 164 U.S. 633, 635, 17 S.Ct. 208, 41 L.Ed. 579; Ex parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70, 73, 34 S.Ct. 7......
-
N. Am. Butterfly Ass'n v. Wolf
...of a judgment occurred when it was "entered in the order book, or record of the court's proceedings"); cf. Ex parte Morgan , 114 U.S. 174, 174–175, 5 S.Ct. 825, 29 L.Ed. 135 (1885) (referring to the clerk's "ministerial act of recording a judgment" as the "entry" of the judgment); Hentif , ......
-
State ex rel. Bayha v. Philips
... ... Mo. 310; Castello v. Circuit Court, 28 Mo. 259; Ex ... parte Cox, 10 Mo. 742; State ex rel. v. Court of Common ... Pleas, 73 Mo ... its own practice." Ex parte Morgan, 2 Chitty, 250; ... King v. Justices, 4 B. & Ald. 86. (4) When the ... case. Kidd v. Morrison , 62 N.C. 31, 1 Phil. Eq. 31 ... Another cause in that state was ruled upon in a similar way ... State v ... ...
-
Shoshone County v. Thompson
... ... 517, 66 P. 788; Merrill on Mandamus, sec. 32; Ex parte Brown, ... 116 U.S. 401, 6 S.Ct. 387, 29 L.Ed. 676; Ex parte Morgan, 114 ... the old to another county, to apportion the property and ... indebtedness of the old county ... ...