McCluny v. Silliman
15 U.S. 369 (1817)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

McCluny v. Silliman, 15 U.S. 369 (1817)

McCluny v. Silliman

15 U.S. 369

MOTION FOR MANDAMUS

This Court has not jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the register of a land office of the United States commanding him to enter the application of a party for certain tracts of land, according to the seventh section of the Act of 10 May 1800, "providing for the sale of the lands of the United States northwest of the Ohio and above the mouth of Kentucky River," which mandamus had been refused by the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio upon a submission by the register to the jurisdiction of that court, being the highest court of law or equity in that state.

Mr. Harper moved for a mandamus in this cause to the defendant, as register of the land office of the United States at Zanesville, in the State of Ohio, commanding him to enter the application of the plaintiff for certain tracts of land according to the provisions of the 9th section of the Act of Congress of 10 May, 1800, entitled

"An act providing for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio and above the mouth of Kentucky River."

A rule to show cause had been obtained in the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio (being the highest court of law or equity of that state), whereupon the defendant appeared, and excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, but this plea was afterwards waived, and a case agreed between the parties, on which the court ordered the rule to be discharged. Mr. Harper now moved for a mandamus to issue from this

Page 15 U. S. 370

Court upon the ground that the case was within the appellate jurisdiction of the Court under the equity of the Judiciary Act of 1789; that although the Court had determined that it had no original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, yet it might have an appellate jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to such persons where it had been refused by the highest court of law or equity of a state in a case drawing in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States.

The motion was denied by the Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.