Page images
PDF
EPUB

MANDAMUS FORM VI.-RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MANDAMUS

SHOULD NOT ISSUE.

[6 Peters, 774.]

Ex parte MARTHA BRADSTREET IN THE MATTER

OF MARTHA BRADSTREET,

Demandant,

against

APOLLOS COOPER, et al.,

Tenants.

Mr. Jones, of counsel for the demandant in the above named cases, moved the court for a rule to be granted, to be served on the district judge of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, commanding him to be and appear before this court, either in person or by an attorney of this court, on the first day of the next January Term of this court, to wit, on the second Monday of January, Anno Domini 1833, to show cause, if any he have, why a mandamus should not be awarded to the said district judge of the Northern District of New York, commanding him,

1. To reinstate, and proceed to try and adjudge according to the law and right of the case, the several writs of right and mises thereon joined, lately pending in said court, and said to have been dismissed by order of said court, between Martha Bradstreet, demandant, and Appollos Cooper et al., tenants.

2. Requiring said court to admit such amendments in the form of pleading, or such evidence as may be necessary to aver or to ascertain the jurisdiction of said court in the several suits aforesaid.

3. Or if sufficient cause shall be shown by the said judge on the return of this rule, or should otherwise appear to this court, against a writ of mandamus requiring the matters and things aforesaid to be done by the said judge, then to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue from this court, requiring the said judge to direct and cause full records of the judgments or orders of dismission in the several suits aforesaid, and of the processes of the same, to be duly made up and filed, so as to enable this court to re-examine and decide the grounds and merits of such judgments or orders upon writs of error, such records showing upon the face of each what judgments or final orders dismissing, or otherwise definitely disposing of said suits, were rendered by the said Dstrict Court, at whose instance, upon what grounds, and what exceptions or objections were reserved or taken by said demandant, or on her behalf, to the judgments or decisions of the said District Court in the premises, or to the motions whereon such judgments or decisions were found; and what motion or motions, application or applications, were made to said court by the demandant, or on her behalf; and either granted or overruled by said District Court, both before and after said judgments or decisions dismissing or otherwise finally disposing of said suits; especially what motions or applications were made by said demandant or on her behalf to the said

District Court, to be admitted to amend her counts in the said suits, or to produce evidence to establish the value of the lands, etc., demanded in such counts, together with all the papers filed, and proceedings had in said suits respectively.

On consideration whereof, it is now here considered and ordered by this court that the rule prayed for be, and the same is hereby granted, returnable to the first day of the next January Term of this court, to wit, on the second Monday of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three. Per Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL.

MANDAMUS FORM VII.-RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST ISSUE OF MANDAMUS.

[Application granted, 247 U. S. 231, in which the author was counsel.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE MATTER

OF

The Application of ANNIE S. SIMONS for a Writ of Mandamus against the Honorable Charles M. Hough, Circuit Judge of the United States for the Second Circuit, and against the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sitting at common law; or, in the alternative, for a Writ of Prohibition against the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sitting in Equity; or, in the alternative, for a Writ of Certiorari addressed to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

RETURN OF CHARLES M. HOUGH, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

To the Honorable Edward Douglass White, Chief Justice of the United States, and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

In compliance with the rule to show cause why the prayer of petitioner should not be granted, issued by this Honorable Court on November 12th,

1917, and served November 20th, 1917, the above named respondents do hereby respectfully present that

On the 16th day of May, 1917, a complaint was filed in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by Annie S. Simons, alleging herself to be a citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina, against William Nelson Cromwell, described in the summons as "Thomas Nelson Cromwell," and Louis H. Cramer, as executors under the Last Will and Testament of Frank Leslie, deceased, alleged in said complaint to be citizens and residents of the State of New York. Said complaint set out two causes of action, the first cause of action alleging the breach by defendants' testatrix of a contract made with petitioner to leave petitioner a legacy of fifty thousand dollars, the second alleging the breach by said testatrix of a contract with petitioner to pay her the reasonable value of services rendered by her to testatrix, the reasonable value of said services being alleged to be fifty thousand dollars, and said complaint claimed damages for the breach of said contracts in the sum of forty thousand dollars. Thereafter, and on the 27th day of June, 1917, an answer to said complaint was filed in said Court by Louis H. Cramer, as executor under the Last Will and Testament of said Frank Leslie, deceased, and thereafter, and on the 7th day of July, 1917, an answer to said complaint was filed in said Court by William Nelson Cromwell, as executor of the Last Will and Testament of Frank Leslie, deceased. Copies of the said complaint and the answers thereto are attached to the petition of petitioner herein as Exhibits A, B and C, respectively, but for greater certainly copies thereof are hereunto annexed and made a part of this return and are marked Exhibits A, B and C respectively.

On July 20, 1917, said defendants William Nelson Cromwell and Louis H. Cramer served upon petitioner's attorney an affidavit and notice of motion "for an order remanding the first cause of action alleged herein to the Equity side of the Court and for such other and further relief as may be just, together with the costs of this motion," a copy of which motion papers is hereto annexed and made a part hereof and marked Exhibit D.

On September 27th, 1917, the said motion came on for argument before respondent, Charles M. Hough, United States Circuit Judge, who, having then been duly designated to hear motions in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, was then and there sitting in that capacity and for that purpose and had jurisdiction to hear and determine said motion and to make and enter an order thereon. The said respondent Charles M. Hough heard the counsel of the respective parties fully on all questions raised thereby. Thereafter, and on or about October 25, 1917, said Charles M. Hough, in the exercise of his jurisdiction and official discretion, granted said motion by an order made by him and entered on or about October 25, 1917, a copy of which is hereto annexed and made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit E. Said respondent Charles M. Hough rendered an opinion upon the said motion, a copy of which is hereto annexed and made a part hereof and marked Exhibit F.

Said order granting said motion was made upon due notice or upon the appearance of the parties and in the exercise of the jurisdiction and official discretion of said respondent Charles M. Hough, acting in the capacity hereinbefore stated.

In entering said order respondent Charles M. Hough acted under the authority and power conferred upon him by Section 274(a) of the Judicial Code; and, under said Section, respondent transferred the first cause of action set out in petitioner's complaint to the Equity side of the District Court because, after hearing the argument of counsel on both sides and on consideration of the question and examination of the authorities, respondent was of the opinion that said first cause of action did not state a cause of action at law, but that if any relief could be afforded petitioner on the facts alleged in said first cause of action, such relief must be had in a Court of Equity.

This return includes all papers in the case relative to the said motion of William Nelson Cromwell and said Louis H. Cramer, as executors under the Last Will and Testament of Frank Leslie, deceased, and to the proceedings had thereon and the order entered thereon, and includes all parts of the record in said case of Simons vs. Cramer and Cromwell, which respondents are advised and believe are material for this Court to be advised of under the rule to show cause herein.

Clarke M. Rosecrantz, Esq., a member of the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, attorneys for said William Nelson Cromwell, and Edgar T. Brackett, Esq., attorney for said Louis H. Cramer, having desired to be heard, in order to secure them such opportunity, the respondents hereby designate them, or such associate counsel as they may select, to present this return and to file such brief and make such argument as may be required on this rule to show cause.

[blocks in formation]

MANDAMUS FORM VIII.-RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST ISSUE OF MANDAMUS TO SET

ASIDE RECEIVERSHIP.

[Re Metropolitan Railway Receivership, 208 U. S. 90.]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE MATTER

OF

The application of JOSEPH KONRAD, individually and as Administrator of Paul Planovsky, Deceased, for a Writ of Mandamus against the Honorable E. Henry Lacombe, Circuit Judge of the United States for the Second Circuit, and against the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

RETURN OF E. HENRY LACOMBE, CIRCUIT JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AND THE [DIS. TRICT] COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

TO THE HONORABLE MELVILLE W. FULLER, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES:

In compliance with the order to show cause why the prayer of petitioners should not be granted, issued by this Honorable Court on November 18, 1907, and served. November 21, 1907, the above named Respondents do hereby respectfully present that:

On September 24, 1907, a bill in equity was filed in the United States [District] Court, Southern District of New York, by The Pennsylvania Steel Company and The Degnon Contracting Company, citizens and residents respectively of the States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, against the New York City Railway Company, a citizen and resident of the State of New York, alleging the insolvency of the defendant and praying for the mar shaling and administration of its assets; a subpoena was issued thereupon and service was made upon the defendant. An answer to the bill, admitting its allegations, was thereafter on the same day filed in said court and the bill and answer were presented to the respondent E. HENRY LACOMBE then holding said court. Copies of the bill, the subpoena, the Marshal's return, and the answer thereto are hereto annexed marked Exhibits A, A-2, A-3, and B. Counsel for the respective parties appeared and upon motion by complainants, not opposed but assented to by defendant, a decree appointing temporary receivers of the New York City Railway Company was signed and entered, a copy of which is hereto annexed marked Exhibit C. The receivers, Adrian H. Joline and Douglas Robinson, immediately

« PreviousContinue »