Intire v. Wood

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON
Citation3 L.Ed. 420,11 U.S. 504,7 Cranch 504
Decision Date09 March 1813
PartiesMcINTIRE v. WOOD

11 U.S. 504
7 Cranch 504
3 L.Ed. 420
McINTIRE
v.
WOOD.
March 9, 1813

Absent. WASHINGTON, J. and TODD, J.

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,

Page 505

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.

March 15th

JOHNSON, J. delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

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.

Page 506

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 practice notes
  • Saffron v. Department of the Navy, No. 75-1794
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 1, 1977
    ...that enactment, only the courts of the District of Columbia had mandamus jurisdiction. Compare M'Intire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch.) 504, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813), with Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 55 Act of Aug. 30, 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-519, 78 Stat......
  • Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp., No. 1651
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 22, 1982
    ...only such authority as may be vested in them by Congress, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dall 7, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813); Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 (1838); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How 236, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845), and that fo......
  • Garland v. Sullivan, No. 83-1283
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 27, 1984
    ...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 substantive authority......
  • County Collector of County of Winnebago, Ill., Application of, Nos. 96-1709
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1996
    ...e.g., Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 453-55, 7 S.Ct. 633, 634-35, 30 L.Ed. 743 (1887); McIntire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813); see also Akhil Reed Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 443, 459 (1989).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 cases
  • Saffron v. Department of the Navy, No. 75-1794
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 1, 1977
    ...that enactment, only the courts of the District of Columbia had mandamus jurisdiction. Compare M'Intire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch.) 504, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813), with Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 55 Act of Aug. 30, 1964, Pub.L. No. 88-519, 78 Stat......
  • Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp., No. 1651
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • February 22, 1982
    ...only such authority as may be vested in them by Congress, Turner v. Bank of North-America, 4 Dall 7, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813); Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet 524, 9 L.Ed. 1181 (1838); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How 236, 11 L.Ed. 576 (1845), and that fo......
  • Garland v. Sullivan, No. 83-1283
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 27, 1984
    ...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 substantive authority......
  • County Collector of County of Winnebago, Ill., Application of, Nos. 96-1709
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1996
    ...e.g., Rosenbaum v. Bauer, 120 U.S. 450, 453-55, 7 S.Ct. 633, 634-35, 30 L.Ed. 743 (1887); McIntire v. Wood, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 504, 506, 3 L.Ed. 420 (1813); see also Akhil Reed Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 443, 459 (1989).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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