Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York
222 U.S. 578
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1911-12-11
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- “One who is not a party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal therefrom”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ex Parte Leaf Tobacco Board of Trade of New York. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 60 opinions
EX PARTE LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE,222 U.S. 578(1911)
32 S.Ct. 833
EX PARTE IN THE MATTER OF LEAF TOBACCO BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, PETITIONER.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION.
Original.
Motion for leave to file petition.
Submitted December 4, 1911.
Decided December 11, 1911.
THE petitioner states in its petition that it is a corporation
of the State of New York and "is composed of more than
seventy-five business concerns engaged in the business of selling
leaf-tobacco to manufacturers of tobacco products. That the said
concerns are vitally interested,
Page 579
both directly on their own account and indirectly on the account
of the customers to whom they sell and offer to sell leaf
tobacco, in the proper determination by the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Southern District of New York of the matter
of the dissolution and disintegration of the Combination found by
this Honorable Court to exist among the American Tobacco Company
and the other defendants in the cause entitled, `United States of
Americavs. American Tobacco Company,' which cause, upon appeal
from the said Circuit Court, was decided by this Honorable Court
on May 29, 1911," and reported at221 U.S. 106. It also states
that in pursuance of such decision the said cause was remanded to
the said Circuit Court with directions to enter a decree in
conformity therewith and to take such further steps as may be
necessary to fully carry out the directions therein, and "that
the decree entered in this cause by the Circuit Court is not in
compliance with the mandate of this court."
The petitioner prayed that leave be granted to file with this
court a petition praying for the following relief:
1. That a writ of mandamus issue to the judges of the said
Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New York, directing them to vacate and set aside the said decree,
and to enter a decree in conformity with the opinion and mandate
of this court.
2. That a writ of prohibition issue directed to the said
judges, prohibiting them from proceeding to put the said decree
into effect and from granting the further and supplemental
remedies and relief therein provided for.
3. That a writ of certiorari issue requiring the said judges
to return and certify to this court all the proceedings had
before them in the said cause since the filing of the mandate of
this court in the court below, with all documents and evidence on
which they may have acted in determining the form of their said
decree.
4. That a writ of mandamus issue requiring the said
Page 580
judges to permit your petitioner to intervene in said cause, and
to be joined as a party thereto, with the right to appeal from
said decree or otherwise proceed in said cause as such party.
5. That pending the hearing and decision of said petition and
of the return thereto, all proceedings by the defendants or any
of them looking to the execution of the plan of dissolution
described in said decree, be stayed.
If the decree of the Circuit Court fails to give effect to the mandate of this court, the wrong is one that may properly be redressed at the instance of this petitioner.Matter of EasternCherokees,220 U.S. 83.
Where a public duty exists, a citizen has such an interest in its performance as entitles him to the protection of the writ of mandamus. In such cases it matters not that he be not a party to the record.Union Pacific R.R. Co. v.Hall,91 U.S. 343,354; 26 Cyc. 401;Attorney-Generalv.Boston,123 Mass. 460;Mayor c. of Londonv.Cox, L.R. 2 H.L. 239, 278;Chambersv.Green, L.R. 20 Eq. Cas. (1875), 552, 554.
If the decree be repugnant to the mandate, mandamus is the appropriate remedy.Matter of Eastern Cherokees,220 U.S. 83;In re Potts,166 U.S. 263;In re City Bank,153 U.S. 246;Stewartv.Salomon,97 U.S. 361;Tylerv.Magwire, 17 Wall. 253, 282.In re Sandford Fork Tool Co.,160 U.S. 247, is not applicable here so as to defeat the right to mandamus.
If the writ of mandamus be refused, the petitioner and the public are without a remedy. There can be no appeal, because the petitioner was not a party to the suit, and the Circuit Court denied a motion for leave to intervene. SeeVirginiav.Rives,100 U.S. 313,323.
The decree is repugnant to the mandate, and perpetuatesPage 581a monopoly which this court declared should be destroyed.
The decisions in theNorthern Securities Caseand theStandard Oil Caseare inapplicable here.
The court has power to impose any terms that it thinks just upon the defendants, as a condition of securing exemption from the appointment of a receiver and the issuance of an injunction against interstate traffic.
If the petitioner is not entitled to the writs prayed for as a matter of right, it is at least entitled as a friend of the court to bring the variance between the decree and the mandate to the court's notice; and the court has power of its own motion to remedy the wrong.Stewartv.Salomon,97 U.S. 361;Laddv.Stevenson,112 N.Y. 325,332; 23 Cyc. 948.
2. The action of the court below in refusing to permit the movers to become parties to the record is not susceptible of being reviewed by this court on appeal, or indirectly, under the circumstances here disclosed, by the writ of mandamus.In reCutting,94 U.S. 15, and seeCredits Commutation Co. v.United States,177 U.S. 311.
3. The merely general nature and character of the interest which the movers allege they have in the papers here filed is not in any event of such a character as to authorize them in this proceeding to assail the action of the court below. This is more obvious in this case since the act of the court which is assailed has been accepted by those who are parties to the record.UnitedStatesv.Union Pacific R.R. Co.,105 U.S. 262;Elwellv.Fosdick,134 U.S. 500.Page 582