Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Amchanitzky v. Sinnott

February 5, 1934

AMCHANITZKY
v.
SINNOTT



Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and MACK, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was grounded on (1) lack of jurisdiction, and (2) failure of the petition to state a cause of action. The District Court granted the motion upon the second ground without passing upon the former. 3 F. Supp. 993. It should have based dismissal upon lack of jurisdiction. The rule that District Courts of the United States have no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus is too firmly established to require us to consider its origin or whether the point might, or should, have been decided otherwise. Knapp v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 197 U.S. 536, 25 S. Ct. 538, 49 L. Ed. 870; Covington & C. Bridge Co. v. Hager, 203 U.S. 109, 110, 27 S. Ct. 24, 51 L. Ed. 111. The appellant would have us differentiate these authorities because in them the defendant was not, as here, a federal officer. See Waldo v. Poe, 14 F.2d 749, 750 (D.C.W.D. Wash.).But the Supreme Court opinions do not permit us to take this distinction. Upon this controlling authority, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is so ordered.

19340205

© 1998 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.