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.
In re STREEP, Petitioner, 1895 — 156 U.S. 207 · caselaw · US
General
In re STREEP, Petitioner
156 U.S. 20739 L. Ed. 399·Supreme Court of the United States·1895
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
In re STREEP, Petitioner.
ORIGINAL.
No number.
Submitted January 21, 1895.
Decided January 28, 1895.
The judge in a Circuit Court having settled and signed a bill of exceptions, this court will not, on an application, supported'by affidavits that the bill as settled and signed is incorrect, issue a writ of mandamus requiring him to resettle them.
This was an application by Louis F. Streep for leave to file a petition for a mandamus requiring the judge of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York, acting as judge of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to resettle the bill of exceptions in a certain cause lately pending in said Circuit Court, and tried before that judge, wherein the United States were plaintiffs and Louis F. Streep was defendant, as to a certain request to charge, “according to the truth as the same appears by the stenographer’s minutes taken on the trial,” in respect of which request to charge affidavits to the effect .that the bill of exceptions as settled and signed by the judge was incorrect accompanied the application.
Applicant had previously moved in the Circuit Court for such resettlement of the bill of exceptions, and the motion had been denied.
Mr. Franh Warner Angel for the petitioner.
[MAJORITY — The Chief Justice,]
The Chief Justice,
after making the above statement, said : The application for leave.to file a petition for mandamus is denied. Ex parte Bradstreet, 4 Pet. 102; Chateaugay Iron Co., Petitioner, 128 U. S. 544, 557.