Supreme Court of the United States, 1883

Ex Parte Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 7, 1883 · Waite

108 U.S. 566; 2 S. Ct. 876; 27 L. Ed. 812; 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1070 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. John, K. Oowen and Mr. Hugh L. Bond, -A., for petitioner.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Melekov (9th Cir. 1940)
In re Press Printers & Publishers, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1924)
In re the Press Printers & Publishers, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1925)
Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co. (Mich. 1924)
United States v. Malmin (3d Cir. 1921)
Briggs v. Commissioner of Patents (D.C. Cir. 1918)
Ex Parte Roe (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
State ex rel. Sweeney v. Second Judicial District (N.M. 1912)
Rankin v. Fletcher (Ark. 1907)
Ex Parte the Union Steamboat Company (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
State ex rel. Burbridge v. Call (Fla. 1899)
State v. Booth (Utah 1899)
In re Atlantic City Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1897)
United States ex rel. Mudsill Min. Co. v. Swan (6th Cir. 1895)
State ex rel. Floral City Phosphate Co. v. Hocker (Fla. 1894)
In re Morrison (Supreme Court of the United States 1893)
State ex rel. Colcord v. Young (Fla. 1893)
In re Pennsylvania Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1890)
People ex rel. Sayer v. Garnett (Ill. 1889)

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

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This petition shows that the' Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company brought an action of replevin against John E. Hamilton in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia to recover the . possession of certain railroad cars; that a summons for the defendant and a writ of replevin for the property were issued in the suit; that the defendant Hamilton was duly served with the summons; that the property sued for was taken by the marshal under the writ of replevin and delivered to the company; that a declaration was filed, and. that before pleading thereto Hamilton appeared and moved to vacate' the writ of replevin because the court had no jurisdiction to issue the same. This motion was heard, and thereupon the court ordered and adjudged “ that said writ be quashed and vacated, and all proceedings subsequent to be of no avail; ” and that the action “ be dismissed at the costs of the plaintiff, for which execution may issue, &c.”

*567 This is a final judgment in the action and, if the case is otherwise within our jurisdiction, subject to review here on a writ of error. Upon such a writ the question of the right to maintain the action on which the case was adjudged below, if presented by the record, may be re-examined here. This being so, a writ of mandamus cannot issue. It has been often held that mandamus cannot be used to perform the office of a writ of error. Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578; Ex parte Loring, 94 U. S. 418.

In Ex parte Railway Company, 103 U. S. 794, it was expressly decided that a writ of mandamus could not be used to bring up for .-review a judgment of the circuit court on a plea to the jurisdiction. That is practically what is asked in this case.

The writ is denied.

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