McClellan v. Carland
217 U.S. 268 (1910)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

McClellan v. Carland, 217 U.S. 268 (1910)

McClellan v. Carland

No. 630

Argued January 25, 26, 1910

Decided April 11, 1910

217 U.S. 268

Syllabus

The power of this Court to issue writs of certiorari to the circuit court of appeals is not limited to the provisions of the Court of Appeals Act. It may issue them under § 716, Rev.Stat. In re Chetwood,165 U. S. 443; Whitney v. Dick,202 U. S. 132.

Under § 716, Rev.Stat., and § 12 of the Court of Appeals Act, the circuit court of appeals has authority to issue writs of scire facias and all writs not specifically provided for by statute and necessary for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

Page 217 U. S. 269

Where a case is within the appellate jurisdiction of the higher court, a writ of mandamus may issue in aid of the appellate jurisdiction which might otherwise be defeated by the unauthorized action of the court below, and so held that the circuit court of appeals may issue mandamus to compel the circuit court to vacate a stay pending proceedings in the state court to determine, and thus render res judicata questions within the jurisdiction of the circuit court and involved in the action in which the stay was granted.

The constitutional grant of chancery jurisdiction to federal courts in cases where diverse citizenship exists, to determine interests in estates, is the same as that possessed by the chancery courts of England, and it cannot be impaired by subsequent state legislation creating courts of probate. Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank,215 U. S. 33.

A federal court cannot abandon its jurisdiction already properly obtained of a suit and turn the matter over for adjudication to the state court. Chicot County v. Sherwood,148 U. S. 529.

The pendency of a suit in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in a federal court having jurisdiction thereover.

The judgment in a suit between claimants of an estate and the administrator does not conclude the rights of the state claiming an escheat so long as it is not a party and has not been allowed to intervene on its own behalf.

On certiorari this Court will consider only the record in the circuit court of appeals as certified here in return to the writ, and it decides the case solely as presented in such return.

In this case, held that the circuit court of appeals should have issued an alternative writ of mandamus to, or order to show cause why, the circuit judge should not vacate a stay in an action brought against an administrator by one claiming to be an heir while and until proceedings brought by the state for escheat in the state court should be finally determined.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 217 U. S. 274

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.