In re Cooper

Decision Date02 February 1891
Citation11 S.Ct. 289,138 U.S. 404,34 L.Ed. 993
PartiesIn re COOPER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Statement of Case from pages 404-413 intentionally omitted] Calderon Carlisle and Joseph H. Choate, for the motion.

Atty. Gen. Miller and Sol. Gen. Taft, in on position.

[The balance of this page intentionally omitted]

FULLER, C. J.

This is an application for leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition to the district court of the United States for the district of Alaska. The attorney general being present, and expressing a desire to that effect, opportunity was afforded him to be heard in opposition to granting the leave to file, and this resulted in argument having a much wider range than was necessary to the disposition of the motion. We are of opinion upon the preliminary question that this court has jurisdiction to proceed in respect to the district court of the United States for the district of Alaska, by way of prohibition, under section 688 of the Revised Statutes, and leave will therefore be given to file the petition for such writ and the accompanying suggestion. A rule will be entered as in like cases, returnable on such day as will allow reasonable time for service and return, in relation to which we invite the views of counsel.

(Counsel having conferred, the second Monday of April was made the return-day.)

Leave Granted.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Ex parte Cooper
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 29, 1892
    ...the judge of the district court of Alaska to show cause why the writ should not go. The petition is set out in extenso in Re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289. The main averments are that the schooner W. P. Sayward, a British vessel, while lawfully sailing upon the high seas in la......
  • Percy Summer Club v. Astle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • August 15, 1901
    ...public right of fishing by her majesty's subject; the case being, if anything, one step further removed from any direct right, because, in Re Cooper, the high seas, the public waters of all nations, involved, while at bar New Hampshire claims to be lord paramount and to hold title. Indeed, ......
  • Lincoln-Lucky & Lee Min. Co. v. District Court, Sitting in the First Judicial Dist. of New Mexico
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1894
    ... ... practice. We may say, however, that it is only necessary to ... plead to the jurisdiction below as a foundation for the writ ... where the lower court had jurisdiction of the original ... subject-matter. See U.S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 123; ... Miller, Const 427; In re Cooper, 138 U.S. 404, 11 ... S.Ct. 289; 14 Petersd. Abr. p. 78. To go back to the law of ... England, we find that the writ will issue to the court of ... chancery of Chester, to the court of the marches of Wales, to ... the grand sessions of Wales, and in fact to any inferior ... court, by ... ...
  • Lincoln-Lucky & Lee Min. Co. v. Dist. Court
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1894
    ...the lower court had jurisdiction of the original subject-matter. See U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 123; Miller, Const 427; In re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404, 11 Sup. Ct. 289; 14 Petersd. Abr. p. 78. To go back to the law of England, we find that the writ will issue to the court of chancery of Chester,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT