TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Graham v. Norton

Graham v. Norton, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 427 (1873)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 18, 1873
Judges
Bradley
Citations
82 U.S. 42721 L. Ed. 17715 Wall. 4271872 U.S. LEXIS 1270
Cited by 22
Syllabus
Mandamus from the District Courts will not lie by an assignee in bankruptcy, representing sundry bankrupts, against the auditor of a State, to recover from the State, taxes long before paid into the State treasury, upon the ground that the legislature had by law directed them to be refunded to the parties who had paid the same, or to their representatives. Such a mandamus is not ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, but is in effect an original proceeding.
Summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana; the case being this: The 18th section of the Judiciary Act enacts* that— “ The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the processes and usages of law to any courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.” The 14th section, referring to certain courts of the United States, including the Circuit and District Courts, enacts that they “ Shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law!” "With these statutory enactments in force, one Norton, the assignee in bankruptcy of certain bankrupts, presented, in May, 1871, his petition to the District Court of the United States, setting forth that before the persons now represented by him had been declared bankrupts, they had each paid to the State of Louisiana certain amounts respectively, “ as taxes imposed by it under an act of the legislature; that the legislature had then recently, bjr a more recent act, declared the illegality of the said taxes, and enacted that they should be refunded to the parties who paid them, or to their proper representatives, and that the auditor of public accounts of the State should issue to the said parties, or to their proper representatives, certificates of the amount paid by them; that by operation of law, and the assignments of all the assets, rights, and interests, to the petitioner of the said bankrupts, he, the said Norton, was entitled to the several amounts illegally collected by the State and to receive from the auditor the certificates; which, however, the auditor refused to issue to him; he accordingly prayed for a mandamus ordering the auditor of public accounts, one Graham, to deliver to him, as assignee in bankruptcy of the persons mentioned, certificates for the amount of taxes illegally collected,” &c. The District Court granted the mandamus and the Circuit Court affirmed its action; whether rightly was now the question here on appeal by the auditor.

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

Opinion of the Court

The CHIEF JUSTICE

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Coui’t had jux’isdietion to issue a writ of mandamus in this case. * This court has held that the wx'it may be xised for the purpose of enfoi’cing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Coux-t, where its use by the State court for that pux’pose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original pi’oceeding.

In the thirteenth section of the Judiciax’y Act this court is clothed with power to issue “ writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the pi'ocesses and usages of law to aixy courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States.” † This express authority to issue writs of nxandamxis to National courts and officex-s has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers. ‡ The only exception is that just adverted to, *429 where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.

The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy, * that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded with directions to

Dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 186.

1 Stat. at Large, 81.

Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 189.

13 Wallace, 247.

Concurrence — Bradley

Mr. Justice BRADLEY:

I concur in the judgment of the court, on the ground that the case was not on its merits a proper one for a mandamus. I think it unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the bankrupt court may or may not in any case issue a mandamus to an officer of á State.

Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document

82 U.S. 427 (1872) 15 Wall. 427

GRAHAM

v.

NORTON.

Supreme Court of United States.

*428 Mr. P. Phillips (a brief of Mr. T. Hunton being filed on the same side), for the appellant; Mr. T.J. Durant, contra.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that neither the District nor the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case. [*] This court has held that the writ may be used for the purpose of enforcing a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court, where its use by the State court for that purpose is sanctioned by State laws, but in such cases it is used as a process for the enforcement of judgments and not as an original proceeding.

In the thirteenth section of the Judiciary Act this court is clothed with power to issue "writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the processes and usages of law to any courts appointed or persons holding office under the authority of the United States." [†] This express authority to issue writs of mandamus to National courts and officers has always been held to exclude authority to issue these writs to State courts and officers. [‡] The only exception is that just adverted to, *429 where they have been issued as process to enforce judgments.

The fourteenth section clothes all the courts of the United States with power to issue certain specific writs, and all other writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. Of course Circuit Courts may issue writs of mandamus when necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction, but they have no authority to issue it as an original writ in any case. The absence of the power in the Circuit Courts to issue writs of mandamus, except as ancillary to a jurisdiction already acquired, is so well explained in Bath County v. Amy, [*] that it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, and the case remanded with directions to

DISMISS THE SUIT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

Mr. Justice BRADLEY:

I concur in the judgment of the court, on the ground that the case was not on its merits a proper one for a mandamus. I think it unnecessary to pass upon the question whether the bankrupt court may or may not in any case issue a mandamus to an officer of a State.

NOTES

[*] Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 186.

[†] 1 Stat. at Large, 81.

[‡] Riggs v. Johnson County, 6 Wallace, 189.

[*] 13 Wallace, 247.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1874–1875: 11882–1883: 21886–1887: 31888–1889: 11896–1897: 21898–1899: 51904–1905: 11906–1907: 21936–1937: 11938–1939: 11944–1945: 11966–1967: 11972–1973: 118742026peak 1898 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Youngblood v. United States141 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1944)
  2. Waite v. City of Santa Cruz89 F. 619 (1898)
  3. State ex rel. Glassell v. Shell Petroleum Corp.20 F. Supp. 795 (W.D. La. 1937)
  4. J. David STERN and Sophie L. Siegel v. SOUTH CHESTER TUBE COMPANY378 F.2d 205 (3d Cir. 1967)
  5. Hellawell v. Grafeld22 F. Supp. 765 (E.D.N.Y. 1938)
  6. Whitaker & Ray Co. v. Roberts155 F. 882 (1907)

Most recent

  1. Iowa City-Montezuma Railroad Shippers Ass'n v. United States338 F. Supp. 1383 (S.D. Iowa 1972)
  2. J. David STERN and Sophie L. Siegel v. SOUTH CHESTER TUBE COMPANY378 F.2d 205 (3d Cir. 1967)
  3. Youngblood v. United States141 F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1944)
  4. Hellawell v. Grafeld22 F. Supp. 765 (E.D.N.Y. 1938)
  5. State ex rel. Glassell v. Shell Petroleum Corp.20 F. Supp. 795 (W.D. La. 1937)
  6. Burnham v. Fields157 F. 246 (1907)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list