Ex Parte Bradstreet
Supreme Court of the United States
AT the January term of this court in 1832, on the motion of Mr Jones, counsel for the demandant, the court granted “ a rule on the district judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, commanding him td be and appear before this court, either in person or by an attorney of this court, on. the first day of the next January term of .this court, to wit on the second Monday of January, anno Domini. 1833, to show cause, if any he have,…
Read the full summary
AT the January term of this court in 1832, on the motion of Mr Jones, counsel for the demandant, the court granted “ a rule on the district judge of the district court of the United States for the northern district of New York, commanding him td be and appear before this court, either in person or by an attorney of this court, on. the first day of the next January term of .this court, to wit on the second Monday of January, anno Domini. 1833, to show cause, if any he have, why a mandamus should not be awarded to the said district judge of the northern district-of New York, commanding him, “…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Marshall
After hearing .Counsel, and considering the cause shown by the honorable the judge for the court of the Untied States for the northern district of New York; this court is of opinion that it ought not to exercise any control over the proceedings of the district court in allowing or refusing to allow amendments in the pleadings; but that every party has a'right to the judgment of this court in a suit brought by him in one. of the inferior courts of the United States, provided. the matter in dispute exceeds' the sum or value of two thousand dollars.
In cases where the demand is not for money, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bobyshall v. OppenheimerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1824
3Cited by53 opinions
- Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- McClellan v. CarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Chapman v. BarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.