Mandamus. Motion for a rule on the District Judge of the
District Court of the United States for the Missouri District to
show cause why a mandamus should not issue from this Court
commanding him to order an execution to issue on a judgment entered
in that court in the case of
Postmaster General of the United
States v. Rector's Administrator. The motion was founded on an
attested copy of the record of the proceedings in the district
court by which it appeared that the district judge, on the motion
of the district attorney of the United States for an order for an
execution on this judgment "after mature deliberation thereon,"
overruled the motion. The rule to show cause was refused.
The Court has looked into the practice of this Court upon
motions of this sort, and it does not appear to have been
satisfactorily settled. For anything that appears in this case,
there may have been sufficient reason for the decision of the
district court overruling the motion for an execution, and there is
nothing in the record to create a
prima facie case of
mistake, misconduct, or omission of duty on the part of the
district court. In such a state of facts, the Court is bound to
presume that everything was rightly done by the court until some
evidence is offered to show the contrary, and they cannot, upon the
evidence before the Court, assume that there is any ground for its
interposition.
A rule to show cause is a rule upon the judge to explain his
conduct, and implies that a case had been made out which makes it
proper that this Court should know the reasons for his decision.
When the record does not show mistake, misconduct, or omission of
duty on the part of the court, unless such a
prima facie
case to the contrary is made out, supported by affidavit as would
make it the duty of the court to interpose, such a rule ought not
to be granted.
Mr. Butler, Attorney General, moved the Court for a rule on the
District Judge of the United States for the District of Missouri to
show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued commanding
him to order an execution to issue on judgment of the said district
court in this case.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
A motion has been made in this case by the Attorney General of
the United States for a rule on the Judge of the District Court of
the United States for the Missouri District to show cause why a
mandamus should not issue from this Court commanding him to order
an execution to issue on the judgment entered in that court in the
case of
Postmaster General v. Trigg.
The motion is founded upon an attested copy of the record of the
proceedings in the district court by which it appears that at
Page 36 U. S. 174
September term, 1834, the Postmaster General recovered in the
said court a judgment against the above-named defendant for the sum
of $1,595.53, the damages assessed by the jury, and costs of suit.
That at March term, 1835, the attorney of the United States moved
the court to order the clerk to issue a
fieri facias on
this judgment against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements
of the said Elias Rector, deceased, in the hands of the said
administrator to be administered. At September term 1835, the court
decided upon this motion, and the record states that "after mature
deliberation thereupon had," the court overruled the motion. This
is the only evidence filed here by the Attorney General in support
of the motion for a rule to show cause why a mandamus should not
issue.
The Court has looked into the practice of this Court upon
motions of this sort, and it does not appear to have been
satisfactorily settled, and we have therefore thought it a fit
occasion, when the Court is full, to deliberate on the subject and
to state the principles by which the Court will be guided.
The district court, upon which the rule is proposed to be laid,
is a court of record, and the proceedings in the case before us
appear to have been conducted in regular form, and the decision
which has given rise to this motion to have been made after mature
deliberation. For anything that appears before us, there may have
been sufficient reason for this decision, and there is nothing in
the record to create a
prima facie case of mistake,
misconduct, or omission of duty on the part of the district court.
In such a state of facts, we think that we are bound to presume
that everything was rightfully done by the court until some
evidence is offered to show the contrary, and cannot, upon the
proof before us, assume that there is any ground for the
interposition of this Court. A rule to show cause is a call upon
the judge to explain his conduct, and implies that a case had been
made out which makes it proper that this Court should know the
reasons for his decision. We think that in a case like this, such a
rule ought not to be granted where the record does not show
mistake, misconduct, or omission of duty on the part of the court
unless such a
prima facie case to the contrary is made
out, supported by affidavit, as would make it the duty of this
Court to interpose.
The rule is therefore refused, and it may be proper, in order to
settle the practice in cases of this description, to state that the
Court unanimously concurs in this opinion.
Rule refused.
