Intire v. Wood
| Decision Date | 09 March 1813 |
| Citation | 3 L.Ed. 420,11 U.S. 504,7 Cranch 504 |
| Parties | McINTIRE v. WOOD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case came up from the Circuit Court for the district of Ohio, upon a certificate stating that the judges of that Court were divided in opinion upon the question, Whether that Court had power to issue a writ of mandamus to the register of a land-office in Ohio commanding him to issue a final certificate of purchase to the Plaintiff for certain lands in tha state?
HARPER, for the Plaintiff, referred the Court to the case of Marbury v. Madison, (ante vol. 1, p. 137.)
The constitution of the United States extends the judicial power to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.
By the 11th sect. of the judiciary act of 1789, vol. 1, p. 55,) the Circuit Courts have original cognizance of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds the value of 500 dollars, &c. And by the 14th sect. of the same act they have power to issue all writs necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. This is a suit of a civil nature at common law, and the matter in dispute exceeds the value of 500 dollars. The writ of mandamus is necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, and is agreeable to the principles and usages of law. 3 Burr. 1266.
The power given by the constitution is divided between the Supreme and the Circuit Courts. It has been decided, that the power to issue a mandamus, in such a case, does not belong to the Supreme Court; it must, therefore, be in the Circuit Courts.
I am instructed to deliver the opinion of the Court in this case. It comes up on a division of opinion in the Circuit Court of Ohio, upon a motion for a mandamus to the register of the land office, at Marietta, commanding him to grant final certificates of purchase to the Plaintiff for lands, to which he supposed himself entitled under the laws of the United States.
This Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court did not possess the power to issue the mandamus moved for.
Independent of the particular objections which this case presents from its involving a question of freehold. VOL, VII we are of opinion that the power of the Circuit Courts to issue the writ of mandamus, is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons
...did not grant jurisdiction to federal courts to issue writs of mandamus except in aid of their jurisdiction. M'Intire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. That position, possibly a reflection of Jeffersonian notions of separation of powers,10 laste......
-
Garland v. Sullivan
...court's jurisdiction over pending civil or criminal cases is that of the custodian of needed witnesses. 3 In McIntire v. Wood, 11 U.S. [7 Cranch] 504, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813), the Court held that section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, from which section 1651(a) is derived, was not a source of ......
-
Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris
... ... applications for the writs of mandamus were accordingly ... denied. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 175, 2 ... L.Ed. 60; McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504, 3 L.Ed ... 420; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L.Ed ... 1181; Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Pet. 279, 10 L.Ed. 161; Riggs v ... ...
-
National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
...such authority as is vested in them by the Congress. Turner v. Bank of North America, 1799, 4 Dall. 8, 1 L.Ed. 718; McIntire v. Wood, 1813, 7 Cranch 504, 3 L.Ed. 420; Kendall v. United States, ex rel. Stokes, 1838, 12 Pet. 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181; Cary v. Curtis, 1845, 3 How. 236, 11 L.Ed. 576.1 ......