Court Opinion

ID: 9418757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:38:22.212753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:09.666450
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Van Devanter, Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Justice Sutherland
are unable to concur in this decision. But, as the decision is put distinctly on the ground that the specific duty sought to be enforced by mandamus is not so definitely and plainly described by the statute as to justify the application of that remedy, and the question whether the inventory in controversy, omitting a specific valuation of important rights and interests, gives full or adequate effect to the intent of the statute, is not determined but distinctly reserved for future contestations, they deem it sufficient to say at this time that they regard the reasons assigned by the Court of Appeals for its judgment as sound and requiring an affirmance of its judgment.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Butler took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.