Ex Parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This petition shows that the' Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company brought an action of replevin against John E. Hamilton in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia to recover the . possession of certain railroad cars; that a summons for the defendant and a writ of replevin for the property were issued in the suit; that the defendant Hamilton was duly served with the summons; that the property sued for was taken by the marshal under the writ of replevin and delivered to the company; that a declaration was filed, and. that before pleading thereto Hamilton appeared and moved to vacate' the writ of replevin because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the same. This motion was heard, and thereupon the court ordered and adjudged “ that said writ be quashed and vacated, and all proceedings subsequent to be of no avail; ” and that the action “ be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff, for which execution may issue, &c.”
*567 This is a final judgment in the action and, if the case is otherwise within our jurisdiction, subject to review here on a writ of error. Upon such a writ the question of the right to maintain the action on which the case was adjudged below, if presented by the record, may be re-examined here. This being so, a writ of mandamus cannot issue. It has been often held that mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of a writ of error.
Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578 ;
Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418 .
In Ex parte Railway Company, 103 U. S. 794 , it was expressly decided that a writ of mandamus could not be used to bring up for .-review a judgment of the circuit court on a plea to the jurisdiction. That is practically what is asked in this case.
The writ is denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.