Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James
272 U.S. 701 (1927)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James, 272 U.S. 701 (1927)

Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corporation v. James

No. ___, Original

Motion submitted October 25, 1926

Denied January 3, 1927

272 U.S. 701

Syllabus

1. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, under Jud. Code § 234, and in fulfillment of its power under Rev.Stats. § 917 to regulate the equity practice, this Court has discretion to issue the writ directly to the district court in a case of which it has ultimate power to review the merits, for the purpose of inquiring into and correcting a practice of assigning all patent causes to a master, adopted by the district judges in alleged disconformity to the Equity Rules. P. 272 U. S. 705.

2. Under Equity Rules 46 and 59, trials are, generally, to be oral, in open court, and references to a master exceptional, and this applies to patent cases. P. 272 U. S. 706.

Page 272 U. S. 702

3. District courts must exercise a discretion in reference to the order of business, and congestion of the calendar with many cases, including a large number of criminal cases, ahead of the patent cases may furnish cause for referring the patent cases to a master. P. 272 U. S. 707.

Leave to file denied.

Original application for leave to file a petition for mandamus directed to one of the district judges of the Southern District of California.

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.