Reference

Full Case Name

Funk v. Van Swearingen

Cited By

1 case

Status

Published

Syllabus

Mandamus — 'Supreme Court — Refusal of Common Pleas Court to file order made — Allowance of writ by Supreme Coilrt. 1. A petition filed in tbe Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus against tbe president judge of a Court of Common Pleas to compel him to file certain opinions and orders, averred that the petitioner, an unsecured creditor of a certain debtor whose property had been placed in the hands of receivers by order of the said Common Pleas Court, had filed an application in said court for leave to bring suit against such debtor; that on June 12, 1915, the respondent announced that he had prepared an opinion and orders in the matter of petitioner’s and other creditors’ applications, and by unanimous consent of counsel interested September 14, 1915, was fixed as the date when the orders should be filed; that on September 11th the respondent announced in open court that there would be a delay in filing the opinion and orders until March 14, 1916, such action having been taken against the objections of the petitioner but at the instance of the other parties in interest. The respondent was at the time the sole judge of the courts. The respondent filed an answer to the effect that the estate of the debtor in question was greatly involved and had necessitated receiverships of twelve other estates, amounting in all to one hundred million dollars; that the interest of the petitioner and other creditors would be best preserved by a delay in the filing of the orders; and that all parties interested, with the exception of the petitioner, had consented to such delay. Held, the answer was insufficient and the petitioner was entitled to the writ of mandamus as prayed for. 2. In such case a petition to the Supreme Court by a number of the members of the bar of the county, a number of whom were interested personally as creditors of the estate in question, alleging that in the event of the lower court being ordered to file the opinion and orders, similar action would have to be taken where other petitioners who were creditors of the estate and had filed like application, and that such action would result in thousands of suits, would force the estate of the debtor in question into bankruptcy and throw thousands of workmen out of employment, and praying that the action of the lower court be sustained, had no proper place in the pleadings and was dismissed. .