Ex parte Fleming
Syllabus
Ex parte Fleming. A party asking this coürt for a mandamus to an inferior court to make a rule on one of its ministerial officers, as the marshal, must show clearly his interest in the matter which he presents as' the ground of his application. The La Crosse and Milwaukie Kailroad Company, a railroad company of Wisconsin, had mortgaged its road and other property to secure certain negotiable bonds which it had issued. The bonds not being paid, a bill of foreclosure was filed in the District Court of the .United States for the Wisconsin district, the only Federal court then in that State, and which- court had at that time Circuit Court powers.. The railroad, &c., was sold by the marshal, who reported ■his sale to thé District Court. The sale was confirmed by .that court and the purchaser placed in possession. , About the timé, however,' when this report and confirmation was. made, Congréss passed certain acts establishing 'a Circuit Court for the Wisconsin district, transferring to the new tribunal, with certain reservations, and limitations, the • powers which had previously been exercised by the District Court.' The extent, however, of the reservations and limitations above referre4 to was a matter not absolutely above question. However, this court, in a case decided at the last term, in reference to a part of the same suit now brought forward, had adjudged that the reservations and limitations were not of as extensive operation as was then contended by counsel that they wer
Full Opinion (1,636 characters)
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered its opinion. The petitioner does not show that he has such .an interest in the matter as would justify the court to permit him to interfere. He describes himself as equitable owner of certain bonds made by the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company. These bond's were secured by a mortgage; and it was in a suit brought to foreclose that mortgage that the salé was had of which he complains. The owner of these bonds, while the foreclosure proceedings were in progress, was Weed, who had deposited them with, the agents of a company, which proposed to use them in buying the said road, at’ the sale under the decree of' foreclosure. These agents -were invested by Weed with an absolute and full power to use the bonds in any manner, so that no money was required of Weed towards the purchase. The sale was made, and the road, purchased as proposed. These bonds were used in the purchase. The sale was confirmed by the District Court and the purchasers placed in possession. Long, after all this was done, as the petitioner alleges, by purchase from Weed he became the equitable owner of the bonds. Who was the legal owner, and what were the relative rights of the equitable and legal owners, or how any one could be the owner when the bond had been cancelled or absorbed in paying for the road, we are not informed. We deem it sufficient to say that the petitioner, who had no interest in the matter at the time of. the sale and confirmation, shows no right now to disturb what the parties who were interested have acquiesced in. Motion overruled. See supra, p. 609, Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.