TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Loring

Ex Parte Loring, 94 U.S. 418 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 26, 1877
Judges
Waite
Citations
94 U.S. 41824 L. Ed. 1651876 U.S. LEXIS 1880
Headnotes
This court will not by mandamus compel an inferior court to grant a motion to vacate an order setting aside a judgment of nonsuit.
Summary
Petition for a mandamus to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan. This petition shows that at the June Term, 1874, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, William B. True, the plaintiff in an action then pending in that court against Elisha T.' Loring, the petitioner, after a jury had been empanelled and the testimony on his part concluded, elected to become nonsuit, and that a judgment to that effect was entered. On the 17th October, 1876, at a subsequent term of the court, after notice to tbe attorney of Loring, True moved to set aside this judgment and restore the cause to the docket for trial. This motion was granted Oct. 31, and, later in the term, Loring appeared by his counsel, and moved to vacate the order then made. This last motion was refused, Jan. 15,1877, and, Jan.,29, this petition was filed by Loring for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court, requiring them “ to vacate the order setting aside said nonsuit.”

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

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

It seems clear to us that the object in this case is to use the writ of mandamus as a writ of error. This cannot be done. We may require the Circuit Court to decide in a proper case if it refuses to act, but cannot control its decision. Here the court has acted, and given its decision upon a motion made. We are asked now to require it to reverse that decision. For that, resort must be had to a writ of error after a final judgment has been rendered. The writ of mandamus has no such office to perform.

Petition denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 21882–1883: 21884–1885: 11892–1893: 11902–1903: 11908–1909: 21910–1911: 21926–1927: 11942–1943: 218782026peak 1878 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Hawkins147 U.S. 486 (1893)
  2. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab15 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1926)
  3. Ex parte Hurt47 So. 264 (Ala. 1908)
  4. United States ex rel. Strickley v. Marshall122 F. 428 (8th Cir. 1903)
  5. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.319 U.S. 21 (1943)
  6. Ex Parte Harding219 U.S. 363 (1911)

Most recent

  1. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.319 U.S. 21 (1943)
  2. Village of Bridgeport v. Public Service Commission24 S.E.2d 285 (W. Va. 1943)
  3. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Rellstab15 F.2d 137 (3d Cir. 1926)
  4. Ex Parte Harding219 U.S. 363 (1911)
  5. First National Bank v. City Council of Estherville129 N.W. 475 (Iowa 1911)
  6. Ex parte Hurt47 So. 264 (Ala. 1908)

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