U.S. Supreme Court
In re Hawkins, Petitioner, 147 U.S. 486 (1893)
In re Hawkins, Petitioner
Submitted January 23, 1893
Decided January 30, 1893
147 U.S. 486
This Court cannot, by mandamus, review the judicial action of a circuit court of appeals in refusing to receive further proofs offered by an appellant, in an admiralty cause pending in that court on appeal.
The petitioner libelled the yacht Lurline and claimant in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, to enforce a state law lien under a maritime contract for repairs. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the petitioner, the claimant appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Upon the filing of the briefs of counsel, it appeared that the claimant proposed to contend that the value of the work and materials furnished by the libellant under the contract had not been proved. Thereupon libellant's proctor gave notice to take testimony on these points and did take such testimony. The counsel for claimant moved to suppress these depositions, which motion was granted and the following opinion filed:
"Per curiam. Motion granted for the reason that the testimony taken on deposition in this Court was available to libellant
on the trial in the district court, witness and books being both present there; that it does not appear that he was prevented from presenting such testimony except by his own choice; that he was as well informed as to its materiality under the issues when he closed his case as he is now, and was expressly notified by respondent's motion to dismiss that the latter contended libellant's proof as to the amount of labor performed was insufficient."
Thereupon application was made here for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the circuit court of appeals directing the judges to receive the depositions and to give them the consideration which in law they were entitled to receive according to the practice of courts of admiralty. chanrobles.com-red
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application on behalf of John P. Hawkins for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to the judges thereof, commanding them to receive and duly consider certain depositions or further proofs taken by petitioner on appeal in an action pending in that court wherein he is the libellant and appellee. The depositions in question were suppressed by the court on motion and for reasons given.
We cannot, by mandamus, review the judicial action thus had in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction. In re Morrison, 147 U. S. 14; Ex Parte Morgan, 114 U. S. 174; Ex Parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238; Ex Parte Schwab, 98 U. S. 240.
Leave to file the petition is