TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Burdett

In re Burdett, 127 U.S. 771 (1888)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
April 16, 1888
Judges
Mr. Justice Miller:
Citations
127 U.S. 7718 S. Ct. 139432 L. Ed. 3211888 U.S. LEXIS 2037
Syllabus
When the amount in controversy in a case decided in the Circuit Court is too small to come here by writ of error, this court is without power by writ of mandamus to compel the judge of the Circuit Court to reverse his own judgment.
Summary
ORIGINAL. This was a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus, and for a rule to show cause why it should not issue. The petition set forth that the petitioner on the 20th March, 1887, in ignorance of the act of March 3d, 1887, increasing the limit of jurisdiction of Circuit Courts to $2000, Commenced an action in replevin to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan for the. recovery of goods and property of the value of $653.38; that the defendants appeared and pleaded the general issue; that file cause was placed upon the trial docket and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction; “ that afterwards, and on or about the 9th day of January, a.d. 1888, the said defendants caused to be brought on to be heard before said court a motion for an order for a return of the property seized under the writ of replevin in said cause, and that the said court thereupon, against the objection of the said plaintiffs, that said court had already dismissed said cause for want of jurisdiction, and consequently had no authority to make and enter such an order, made and entered in said court and cause, an order requiring the said plaintiffs to return to the said defendants the property seized under the writ of replevin in said cause, and the defendant's having thereupon waived a return of said property, said court thereupon ordered that the damages for the value of said property, irrespective of the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest or ownership therein, be assessed by a jury of said court; that afterwards, and on or about the 17th day of January, a.d. 1888, the said plaintiffs moved the said court to set aside and vacate the order entered in said cause on said 9th day of January,” “and that the- said court thereupon entered an order denying said motion.” The prayer of the petition which the petitioner asked leave to file was, “that the people’s writ of mandamus may be issued out of said court, directed to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Michigan, directing and requiring them to set aside and vacate the said order of January 9th, 1888, ordering a return of said property, -and an assessment of the value thereof in case of default, and that the people’s writ of prohibition may be issued out of said court, directed to the said Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, restraining and prohibiting the said court from further proceeding in said cause.”

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

Opinion — Miller

Me. Justice Miller : A petition on the part of H. S. Burdett and others, asking for a mandamus against the Judge of the Circuit Court of the United-States for the Eastern District of Michigan, has been presented to us. The case arises out of an action of replevin in which the Circuit Court decided that it had no jurisdiction. A proceeding was then had to get damages for the taking of the goods in replevin, which the court entertained and rendered judgment for the damages. The amount in controversy is too small to come to this court by writ of error, and we are asked by the writ of mandamus to direct the judge of that court to set aside the judgment which he rendered. Whether there was error in that matter or not, we do not think that we have any power by writ of mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse his own judgment.

How later courts describe this case

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

1889: 11893: 218892026peak 1893 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Co.148 U.S. 372 (1893)
  2. The Farmers'loan and Trust Co.129 U.S. 206 (1889)
  3. In re Hawkins147 U.S. 486 (1893)

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