Meacham v. Austin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
CASE reserved. At the* term of the Superior Court, held at Litchfield, in i'ihru-iry, 1 ¡'. it, (iould and Bacon, in behalf of Russell Meach-am, moved, that a writ of mandamus might be issued to Aaron Austin and others, judges of the County Court, for the county of Litchfield, requiring and enjoining them, at the then next term of the County Court, to order the verdict of a jury, rendered in a certain qui tam prosecution, pending before such court, wherein Meacham was…
Read the full summary
CASE reserved. At the* term of the Superior Court, held at Litchfield, in i'ihru-iry, 1 ¡'. it, (iould and Bacon, in behalf of Russell Meach-am, moved, that a writ of mandamus might be issued to Aaron Austin and others, judges of the County Court, for the county of Litchfield, requiring and enjoining them, at the then next term of the County Court, to order the verdict of a jury, rendered in a certain qui tam prosecution, pending before such court, wherein Meacham was complainant, and one Flavel Beckwith was defendant, to be recorded, and to proceed therein to final judgment This motion was…
1Opinion of the Court
MiTCHBUi, Ch. ,J.
In this case, the only material question is, whether it was the duty of the County Court, under the circumstances detailed in the motion and return, to record the first verdict given, and render judgment thereon ?
The power of the Superior Court to superintend inferior jurisdictions, and to issue a mandamus, to compel them to do justice, by the exercise of the authority they are invested with, cannot admit of a doubt. Although we have no statute which particularly confers this power, yet, the statute which gives this court jurisdiction, in all civil cases, between party and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Etheridge v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838
- Castle v. LawlorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879