Bradstreet v. Huntington, 33 U.S. 588 (1834)

U.S. Supreme Court

Bradstreet v. Huntington, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 588 588 (1834) Bradstreet v. Huntington

33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 588

MOTION FOR MANDAMUS

Syllabus

Motion for an attachment against the judge of the Northern District of New York for a contempt of this Court in refusing to obey its mandamus, directing him to reinstate certain suits which had been dismissed from the docket of that court and to proceed to adjudicate them according to law. The motion also asked for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the district judge.

By the Court:

"A judge must exercise his discretion in those intermediate proceedings which take place between the institution and trial of a suit, and if in the performance of this duty he acts oppressively, it is not to this Court that application is to be made."

A mandamus or a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue is asked in the case in which a verdict has been given for the purpose of ordering the judge to enter up judgment upon the verdict. The affidavit itself shows that judgment is suspended for the purpose of considering a motion which has been made for anew trial. The verdict was given at the last term, and we understand it is not unusual in the State of New York for a judge to hold a motion for a new trial under advisement till the succeeding term. There is then nothing extraordinary in the fact that the judge should take time till the next term to decide on the motion for a new trial. This Court entertains no doubt of his power to grant it.

The attachment and the rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue were refused.

At the January term, 1833, of this Court, a mandamus was awarded on the application of Martha Bradstreet to the District Judge of the United States of the Northern District of New York commanding him to have the records made up in certain cases depending in that court in which the said Martha Bradstreet was demandant, and to enter judgments thereon in order to give the demandant the benefit of a writ of error of the Supreme Court, and also that without delay he should reinstate and proceed to try and adjudge according to the law and right of the several writs of right and the mises therein joined in certain cases depending in that court. 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 634-650.

Mr. Jones, as counsel for the demandant, now moved the court for a mandamus to compel the district judge to permit judgment to be entered, and a writ of seizin awarded upon the verdict of the grand assize, rendered in favor of the said

Page 33 U. S. 589

Martha Bradstreet against the said Henry Huntington, in the district court on 8 February, 1834, and to obtain an attachment against the district judge for his prohibiting the demandant from issuing process to assemble the grand assize in each respective cause which is at issue, and which she would otherwise bring to trial at the next stated session of the said district court, to be held at Albany on the second Tuesday of May next, and also for a rule on the said district judge to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued, &c.

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

This motion is for an attachment against the Judge of the Northern District of New York for a contempt of this Court in refusing to obey its mandamus directing him to reinstate certain suits which had been dismissed from the docket of that court and to proceed to adjudicate them according to law.

The suits were reinstated and ordered for trial as directed by this Court, but delays have taken place so that a verdict has been given in only one of them, and in that judgment has not yet been rendered.

The motion for the attachment is supported by an affidavit of the party, verified by the counsel, giving at great length a history of the proceedings which have taken place in these causes, both before and since the mandamus was awarded. It alleges that since the causes have been reinstated, delays have

Page 33 U. S. 590

taken place which are detailed at great length and are considered as amounting to a contempt of this Court by disregarding its mandamus.

We have only to say that a judge must exercise his discretion in those intermediate proceedings which take place between the institution and trial of a suit, and if in the performance of this duty he acts oppressively, it is not to this Court that application is to be made.

A mandamus, or a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, is asked in the case in which a verdict has been given, for the purpose of ordering the judge to enter up judgment upon the verdict. The affidavit itself shows that judgment is suspended for the purpose of considering a motion which has been made for a new trial. The verdict was given at the last term, and we understand it is not unusual in the State of New York for a judge to hold a motion for a new trial under advisement till the succeeding term. There is then nothing extraordinary in the fact that Judge Conklin should take time till the next term to decide on the motion for a new trial. This Court entertains no doubt of his power to grant it.

We do not think that an attachment ought to be awarded, nor do we think that the present state of the case in which a verdict has been rendered would justify this Court in directing a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued.

The motion is dismissed.