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 Loring, 1876 — 94 U.S. 418 · caselaw · US
General
Ex parte Loring
94 U.S. 41824 L. Ed. 165·Supreme Court of the United States·1876
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 Loring.
This court will not by mandamus compel an inferior court to grant a motion to vacate an order setting aside a judgment of nonsuit.
Petition for a mandamus to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.
This petition shows that at the June Term, 1874, of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, William B. True, the plaintiff in an action then pending in that court against Elisha T.' Loring, the petitioner, after a jury had been empanelled and the testimony on his part concluded, elected to become nonsuit, and that a judgment to that effect was entered. On the 17th October, 1876, at a subsequent term of the court, after notice to tbe attorney of Loring, True moved to set aside this judgment and restore the cause to the docket for trial. This motion was granted Oct. 31, and, later in the term, Loring appeared by his counsel, and moved to vacate the order then made. This last motion was refused, Jan. 15,1877, and, Jan.,29, this petition was filed by Loring for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the Circuit Court, requiring them “ to vacate the order setting aside said nonsuit.”
Mr. Alfred Russell for the petitioner.
No opposing counsel.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
It seems clear to us that the object in this case is to use the writ of mandamus as a writ of error. This cannot be done. We may require the Circuit Court to decide in a proper case if it refuses to act, but cannot control its decision. Here the court has acted, and given its decision upon a motion made. We are asked now to require it to reverse that decision. For that, resort must be had to a writ of error after a final judgment has been rendered. The writ of mandamus has no such office to perform. Petition denied.