Life & Fire Ins. Co. of NY v. Adams

The Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Christopher Adams

Life & Fire Ins. Co. of NY v. Adams, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 571 (1835)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 1, 1835
Judges: Baldwin, Mi', Marshall
Citations: 34 U.S. 5719 L. Ed. 2339 Pet. 5711835 U.S. LEXIS 361

Headnotes

Louisiana. Mandamus. Although no rule to show causé why'a mandamus ■ should not issue to the district judge of Louisiana had been granted-by the ■ court; the district judge had agreed to appear, as if a rule'had been granted by this court, and had been served upon Km ; and copies of the papers on which the motion for the mandamus was founded, had been served on the district judge and on the parties in the suit in which the mandamus was to operate, during the vacation. The district judge filed an answer, as if the rule had been served on him, and appeared by counsel, waivpd a formal rule on notice, and stated' his readiness-to ¿how cause. By the Court. Under such circumstances, there is no necessity for directing a rule to be .entered and notice to bo given; all the purposes of the rule are accomplished.

Summary

THIS \vas a motion for a mandamus, to be directed to the district judge of the district of Louisiana. There had not been any rule taken out and served on the district judge to show cause why a mandamus should not issue. Copies of the papers on which the motion W as founded, with notice that the same would be made at this term, had been served on the district judge and the parties-in the suit pending before hirn, during the late vacation., The dir riot judge ap--peared by counsel, and waived anyinotice pf~á rule tp show cause, and offered to show cause ipsfianter. Air.objection having been suggested, whether, even by consent on both sides, the rule and service thereof ought to be dispensed with, some discussion took place op t}ie subject between the bench and the bar. ' • .

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Baldwin

Mr Justice Baldwin was of opinion, that in a cause of this soft, the court ought not to dispense with the regular course of proceedings,- by the granting and service of a rule to show cause.

Mi' Chief Justice Marshall said, that the grant of a rule to show cause and the service thereof, is a matter in the discretion of the court. The court may, ip its discretion, grant an alternative mandamus, if it deems it more conducive to public *572 justice, and to-prevent delays. Here all the parties express themselves ready to proceed in the cause. The district judge waives any formal rule and notice, and wishes no delay; and states his readiness now to show cause. .Under such circumstances, all the purposes of a? rule to show cause and notice are ..accomplished, and there is no-necessity for directing such a rulé and notice. The coürt, therefore, in my opinion, may properly proceed.at once tó.the hearing of the causej for. the purpose,of ascertaining whether a mandamus ought or ought not to be awardéd.

The other judges concurred in the opinion of the chief justice; and the court directed the motion to come up on the-next motion day; .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Sommerfield v. City of Chicago252 F.R.D. 407 (N.D. Ill. 2008)
Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, Florida v. Daly N. Braxton and Sharon Braxton, Minors, by Sadie Braxton, Their Mother Andnext Friend326 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1964)
United States v. Malmin272 F. 785 (3d Cir. 1921)
Rapp v. Van Dusen350 F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1965)
Ex Parte Roe234 U.S. 70 (1914)
Pioneer Properties, Inc. v. Ross Lloyd Martin, the Genesis Marketing Organization Limited776 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1985)

Most recent

Sommerfield v. City of Chicago252 F.R.D. 407 (N.D. Ill. 2008)
Pioneer Properties, Inc. v. Ross Lloyd Martin, the Genesis Marketing Organization Limited776 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1985)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Crofters, Inc.351 F. Supp. 236 (S.D. Ohio 1972)
Ex parte Curl196 So. 2d 688 (Ala. 1967)
Howard H. Rapp, Administrator of the Estate of Richard F. Zeller, Deceased v. Honorable Francis L. Van Dusen, Roberta Barrack, Administratrix, Leach Biernbaum and Dewey Hoffman, Extrs., Doris A350 F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1965)
Rapp v. Van Dusen350 F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list