Ex parte Ralston and Husband
| Decision Date | 10 January 1887 |
| Citation | 7 S.Ct. 317,30 L.Ed. 506,119 U.S. 613 |
| Parties | Ex parte RALSTON and Husband |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. Prentiss Nutt, for petitioner.
James Lowndes, for British & American Mortgage Co., on its motion to vacate supersedeas.
This is an application for a writ of mandamus requiring the clerk of the supreme court of the state of Louisiana to transmit to this court a true copy of the record in that court of a judgment in the suit of the British & American Mortgage Company against Mrs. E. J. Ralston and her husband, omitting therefrom certain portions not material to the federal uestion involved. From the showing made it sufficiently appears that the judgment was rendered April 5, 1886, and that on the thirty-first of May, 1886, the chief justice of the state court allowed a writ of error to this court, 'on furnishing bond, with security, according to law, for one thousand dollars, not to operate as a supersedeas.' No writ was, however, issued in fact, but the order of allowance, with the petition therefor, was filed in the office of the clerk of the state court, 'and a demand made on the clerk * * * for a copy of the record.' According to the statements in the petition, the clerk refused to give such a transcript unless it should include everything used on the trial in the state court, but the petitioner wanted only such parts of the record as were necessary to present the single question of which this court had jurisdiction.
After the allowance of the writ by the chief justice of the state court, on application of the petitioner, Mr. Justice WOODS, the associate justice of this court allotted to the Fifth circuit, made this order, evidently supposing that a writ of error had actually been issued: 'A writ of error having been allowed in this case, and a bond given and duly approved, without an allowance of supersedeas, though the right of supersedeas is claimed by Mrs. E. J. Ralston, the plaintiff in error, it is ordered that further proceedings to enforce executory process in execution sought to be enforced in this case in the supreme court of Louisiana, or in the district court from which the case was appealed to said supreme court of Louisiana, be suspended until the further order of the supreme court of the United States.'
From this statement it is apparent that we have no authority over the clerk in the matter about which the mandamus is asked. As no writ of error has in fact been issued, we have no jurisdiction of the suit. Mussina v Cavazos, 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sibron v. State of New York Peters v. State of New York
...from this Court is a purely ancillary writ, and may issue only in connection with an appeal actually taken. Ex parte Balston, 119 U.S. 613, 7 S.Ct. 317, 30 L.Ed. 506 (1887); Sup.Ct.Rule 18; see R. Robertson & F. Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States § 435, at 883 (......
-
State ex rel. Otto v. Field
...v. Northern P. R. Co., supra, was also cited in the case of United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 338, 26 S.Ct. 282, 30 L.Ed. 506, to the proposition that, until patent issues, legal title remains in the government and subject to investigation and determination. We think th......
- State Ex Rel.Otto v. Baca)
-
Highland Boy Gold Min. Co. v. Strickley
... ... 440, 20 L.Ed. 429; ... Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 278, 26 L.Ed. 447; Ex ... parte Ralston, 119 U.S. 613, 7 Sup.Ct. 317, 30 L.Ed. 506, ... Stevens v. Clark, 62 F. 321, 323, 10 ... ...