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

IN RE GLASER, 198 U. S. 171 (1905)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 198 U. S. 171 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

In re Glaser, 198 U.S. 171 (1905)

In re Glaser

No. 16, Original

Submitted April 20, 1905

Decided May 8, 1905

198 U.S. 171


Since the passage of the Act of March 3, 1891, this Court has no jurisdiction to review judgments or decrees of the district and circuit courts, directly by appeal or writ of error in cases not falling within § 5 of that act.

In cases over which this Court possesses neither original nor appellate jurisdiction, it cannot grant mandamus.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a petition by Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 198 U. S. 172

for mandamus, requiring the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York to take jurisdiction and proceed against Anthony P. Langer in a certain suit alleged by petitioner to be pending and undetermined in that court, wherein Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix, is plaintiff, and Anthony P. Langer is defendant, and to strike from the records of the court a certain order made on the fourteenth day of November, 1904, entitled:

"'In the Matter of the Application of Gertrude Glaser, Administratrix, etc., to compel the filing of an answer, or other relief, in an action alleged to be pending between Gertrude Glaser, as Administratrix, etc., of Isador Glaser, deceased, Plaintiff, and Anthony P. Langer, Defendant,' whereby petitioner's application to compel the filing of said answer was denied on the ground that no such action was pending, and to make such disposition of said suit as ought to have been made had said order not been made and entered therein. . . ."

The petition alleged the commencement in the circuit court of a common law action by petitioner, as administratrix, against Langer, to recover damages for negligence causing the death of petitioner's husband, and rested the jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. The circumstances in respect of a mistake, by reason of which no summons was issued, though service of copy was made, are set forth in detail, and the fact alleged of notice of appearance and answer, and the assertion by defendant's attorney that this was in ignorance of the defect in the summons.

Leave to file the petition was granted, and, this having been done, a rule was entered thereon, to which the judge presiding in the circuit court, and before whom all the proceedings referred to in the petition were had, and by whom the decision was made, made due return submitting his action in the premises, and certifying that his reasons for denying the motion were set forth in the order, which is given at length. It appears therefrom that the motion was denied

"upon the sole ground that no action of Gertrude Glaser, as administratrix of

Page 198 U. S. 173

the goods, chattels, and credits of Isador Glaser, deceased, plaintiff, against Anthony P. Langer, defendant, is nor ever has been pending in this Court."

In cases over which we possess neither original nor appellate jurisdiction, we cannot grant mandamus. Rev.Stat. § 716; In re Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 482.

Of course, there is no pretense of original jurisdiction here, and since the passage of the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, we have no jurisdiction to review the judgments or decrees of the district and circuit courts directly by appeal or writ of error in cases such as this case, if pending in the circuit court.

Rule discharged. Petition 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 |™