Case: The Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Christopher Adams
Abbreviation: Life & Fire Insurance v. Adams
Decision Date: 1835-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 9 Pet. 571
Volume: 34
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Christopher Adams.
Judges: 
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
The Life and Fire Insurance Company of New York v. Christopher Adams.
Louisiana. Mandamus. Although no rule to show causé why'a mandamus ■ should not issue to the district judge of Louisiana had been granted-by the ■ court; the district judge had agreed to appear, as if a rule'had been granted by this court, and had been served upon Km ; and copies of the papers on which the motion for the mandamus was founded, had been served on the district judge and on the parties in the suit in which the mandamus was to operate, during the vacation. The district judge filed an answer, as if the rule had been served on him, and appeared by counsel, waivpd a formal rule on notice, and stated' his readiness-to ¿how cause. By the Court. Under such circumstances, there is no necessity for directing a rule to be .entered and notice to bo given; all the purposes of the rule are accomplished.
THIS \vas a motion for a mandamus, to be directed to the district judge of the district of Louisiana.
There had not been any rule taken out and served on the district judge to show cause why a mandamus should not issue. Copies of the papers on which the motion W as founded, with notice that the same would be made at this term, had been served on the district judge and the parties-in the suit pending before hirn, during the late vacation., The dir riot judge ap--peared by counsel, and waived anyinotice pf~á rule tp show cause, and offered to show cause ipsfianter. Air.objection having been suggested, whether, even by consent on both sides, the rule and service thereof ought to be dispensed with, some discussion took place op t}ie subject between the bench and the bar. ' • .

Opinion:
Mr Justice Baldwin
was of opinion, that in a cause of this soft, the court ought not to dispense with the regular course of proceedings,- by the granting and service of a rule to show cause.
Mi' Chief Justice Marshall
said, that the grant of a rule to show cause and the service thereof, is a matter in the discretion of the court. The court may, ip its discretion, grant an alternative mandamus, if it deems it more conducive to public justice, and to-prevent delays. Here all the parties express themselves ready to proceed in the cause. The district judge waives any formal rule and notice, and wishes no delay; and states his readiness now to show cause. .Under such circumstances, all the purposes of a? rule to show cause and notice are .accomplished, and there is no-necessity for directing such a rulé and notice. The coürt, therefore, in my opinion, may properly proceed.at once tó.the hearing of the causej for. the purpose,of ascertaining whether a mandamus ought or ought not to be awardéd.
The other judges concurred in the opinion of the chief justice; and the court directed the motion to come up on the-next motion day; .