Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 U.S. 238

Ex parte Burtis

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided October 1, 1880

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1880-10

<p>This court cannot, by mandamus, compel an inferior court to reverse its decision made in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction.</p>

1 counsel of record

Relies on Ex parte Railway Co.

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Corporate” · Black's (1910)’s definition of “Corporate purpose”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 6–0 · Decided 1880-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co. (1913), Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co. (1888)

4 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

9018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1This court cannot, by mandamus, compel an inferior court to reverse its decision made in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction.

¶2Petition for a writ of mandamus.

¶3Mr. A. J. Todd in support of the petition.

¶4Mr. Chief Justice Waite

¶5delivered the opinion of the court.

¶6This is a petition for a mandamus requiring the district, judge for the eastern district of New York to compel one Eliza M. Shepherd to obey the command of a subpoena duces tecum, and produce before a special examiner certain iron patterns of an old fire-place heater, that testimony might be taken respecting them, to be certified and used on the hearing of an equity cause pending in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. From the petition it appears that the judge has' already .acted on the idéntical showing made to us, and for reasons assigned in writing denied a motion for an attachment against the person named for refusing to obey the subpoena.

¶7A writ of mandamus may be used to compel an inferior tribunal to act on a matter within its jurisdiction, but not to control its discretion while acting (Ex parte Railway Company, 101 U. S. 711), nor reverse its decisions when made. Ex parte Elippin, 94 id. 348. Both these rules are elementary, and are fatal to this application. .The district judge took jurisdiction of the matter, as it was his duty to do, heard the parties, and decided adversely, to the claim of the petitioner. In this he may have done wrong, and the reasons he has assigned may not be such as will bear the test of judicial criticism ; but we cannot, by mandamus, compel him to undo what he has thus done in the exercise of his legitimate jurisdiction. He was asked to punish a person for contempt in disobeying the process of the court. He decided not to do so. This action of his is beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus.

¶8Petition denied.

/103/us/238 · .json · Public domain