Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ex Parte De Groot

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1867
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/81547

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
73 U.S. 497
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ex Parte De Groot

Excerpt

ex parte de groot - 73 u.s. 497 (1867) u.s. supreme court ex parte de groot, 73 u.s. 6 wall. 497 497 (1867) ex parte de groot 73 u.s. (6 wall.) 497 application for mandamus to the judges of the supreme court of the district of columbia syllabus mandamus from this court will not lie to reverse a judgment of a court below refusing a mandamus against the secretary of the treasury commanding him to pay a sum of money awarded to the relator by the secretary of war in pursuance of a joint resolution of congress and to compel such court below to issue one. the petition was presented to the above court praying for the award of a mandamus to the defendant, the secretary of the treasury, commanding him to pay to the relator the sum of $114,000, which had been awarded to him by the secretary of war in pursuance of a joint resolution of congress. the petition set out at large the grounds of the indebtedness of the government to the relator, the joint resolution, and the award of the secretary of war for the amount above stated. the court below denied the prayer for a mandamus, and the papers were now presented to this court for a mandamus to the court below for the purpose of reversing its decision, and commanding it to issue the mandamus. mr. justice nelson delivered the opinion of the court. the party has mistaken his remedy, if he has any, which is by writ of error to the court below to reverse the judgment there rendered in the case. the authorities are uniform on the question. * * decatur v. paulding, 14 pet. 497; kendall v. united states, 12 pet. 527; brashear v. mason, 6 how. 92; united states v. guthrie, 17 id. 284.

Full Judgment

Ex Parte De Groot - 73 U.S. 497 (1867)
U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte De Groot, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 497 497 (1867)

Ex Parte De Groot

73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 497

APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS TO THE JUDGES OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SYLLABUS

Mandamus from this Court will not lie to reverse a judgment of a court below refusing a mandamus against the Secretary of the Treasury commanding him to pay a sum of money awarded to the relator by the Secretary of War in pursuance of a joint resolution of Congress and to compel such court below to issue one.

The petition was presented to the above court praying for the award of a mandamus to the defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury, commanding him to pay to the relator the sum of $114,000, which had been awarded to him by the Secretary of War in pursuance of a joint resolution of Congress. The petition set out at large the grounds of the indebtedness of the government to the relator, the joint resolution, and the award of the Secretary of War for the amount above stated. The court below denied the prayer for a mandamus, and the papers were now presented to this Court for a mandamus to the court below for the purpose of reversing its decision, and commanding it to issue the mandamus.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The party has mistaken his remedy, if he has any, which is by writ of error to the court below to reverse the judgment there rendered in the case. The authorities are uniform on the question. *

* Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 527; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 92; United States v. Guthrie, 17 id. 284.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial