Case Name: Gray and others v. The Directors of the Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1812-07
Citations: 2 Cranch 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gray and others v. The Directors of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 51–52

Head Matter:
Gray and others v. The Directors of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria.
Under the charter of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, it is not necessary that the eight directors who are to be practical mechanics, should be in actual practice E|.t the time of the election.
Rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Directors of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, to admit the complainants as directors, in the place of Mr. Langdon, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Weightman, who, it was alleged, were not practical mechanics at the time of their election.
The 5th section of the charter of the 16th of May 1812, requires that “ there shall be fifteen directors, eight of which at least shall be practical mechanics.”
Mr. C. Lee, for the defendants,
objected that this was not a case for a mandamus, although it might perhaps be a case for an information in the nature of a quo warranto.
Mr. Taylor, in support of the authority of the Court to issue the mandamus,
cited 2 Esp. N. P. 661, 666; Anonymous, Str. 696; Rex v. Turkey Company, 2 Burr. 1000; Rex v. Burgeons Company, 2 Burr. 892; Rex v. Barker, 3 Burr. 1265 ; 5 Com. Dig. 22.

Opinion:
The Court
directed the complainants to suggest their ease, and support it by affidavits; and said they would consider it and the question of jurisdiction.
Afterwards, the Court {nem. con.) was of opinion that it is not necessary that any of the directors should be in actual practice at the time of the election. They gave no opinion as to the jurisdiction.