U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1956

In re First National Bank of Montgomery, as of the Estate of Algernon Blair, Deceased, Praying for a Writ of Mandamus

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Decided June 1, 1956 · Hutcheson, Borah, Rives

233 F.2d 876; 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3218 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Fred S. Ball, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

McGraw Company, a Corporation v. Honorable Robert Van Pelt, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (8th Cir. 1965)
Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp. (District Court, E.D. Texas 2000)
In re McClelland Engineers, Inc. (5th Cir. 1984)
In re McDonnell-Douglas Corp. (5th Cir. 1981)
In re Castanho (5th Cir. 1981)
Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc. (5th Cir. 1981)
Blankenship v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1978)
Seaboard Surety Company v. First National Bank of Montgomery, as of the Estate of Algernon Blair, Deceased (1st Cir. 1959)
In re Tom R. Watkins, Praying for a Writ of Mandamus (5th Cir. 1959)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner applies for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus by which it seeks to have this Court direct Honorable Frank M. Johnson, Jr., United States District Judge, to vacate an order entered by the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) transferring to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida petitioner’s action against Seaboard Surety Company. It affirmatively appears that said action might have been brought in the District to which it was transferred, and that such transfer vests jurisdiction in the District Court for such District. It further appears that in making the transfer the District Court considered the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice, and did not abuse its discretion. See Ex parte Chas. Pfizer & Co., 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 720. The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore .denied.

Denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.