Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
EX PARTE MILWAUKEE AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD CO., 1868 — 154 U.S. 554 · caselaw · US
General
EX PARTE MILWAUKEE AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD CO.
154 U.S. 55418 L. Ed. 887·Supreme Court of the United States·1868
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
EX PARTE MILWAUKEE AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD CO.
ORIGINAL.
No. 8.
Original.
Submitted March 20, 1868.
Decided March 30, 1868:
A petition for a writ of mandamus is denied on tlie authority of Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. 742.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. Cushing for petitioner.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Nelson]
Mr. Justice Nelson
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an amended petition by the Milwaukee and Minnesota Company for a mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin, commanding that court to order certain rolling stock, particularly described, to be taken out of the hands of a receiver, and delivered to the petitioners, pursuant to a decree entered in said court on the 18th July, 1866, in the case of Soutter, &c., v. The La Grosse and Milwaukee Company and Others. Since this petition was presented a case on appeal between the parties has been heard and decided, in which it was determined that the possession of this rolling stock did not belong to the petitioners. [See Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 6 Wall. 742.] The motion for the mandamus must, therefore, be
Denied.