US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

EX PARTE BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 108 U. S. 566 (1883)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 108 U. S. 566 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex Parte Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 108 U.S. 566 (1883)

Ex Parte Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company

Decided May 7, 1883

108 U.S. 566



A writ of mandamus cannot be used to bring up for review a judgment of a circuit court on a plea to the jurisdiction.

Where a circuit court on demurrer vacated and quashed a writ of replevin for want of jurisdiction, it was a final judgment, and it was, if the case was otherwise within the court's jurisdiction, subject to review on a writ of error.

Motion to dismiss a petition for mandamus to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia to direct that court to take jurisdiction in a replevin suit.

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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 108 U. S. 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 reexamined 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.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™