Ex parte Bradstreet (33 U.S. 588)
AT the January term 1833 of this court, a mandamus was awarded, on the application of Martha Bradstreet, to the district judge of the United States of the northern district of New York, commanding him to have the records made up in certain cases depending in that court, in which the said Martha Bradstreet was demandant, and to enter judgments thereon, in order to give the demandant the benefit of a writ of error of the supreme court; and also that without delay he should reinstate and proceed to try and adjudge according to the law and right of the several writs of right and the mises therein joined in certain cases depending in that court. 7 Perters 634-650.
Mr Jones, as counsel for the demandant, now moved the court for a mandamus to compel the district judge to permit judgment to be entered, and a writ of seisin awarded upon the verdict of the grand assise, rendered in favour of the said Martha Bradstreet, against the said Henry Huntington, in the district court on the 8th day of February 1834; and to obtain an attachment against the district judge for his prohibiting the demandant from issuing process to assemble the grand assise in each respective cause which is at issue, and which she would otherwise bring to trial at the next stated session of the said district court, to be held at Albany on the second Tuesday of May next: and also for a rule on the said district judge, to show cause why a mandamus should not be issued, &c.
Mr Jones, in support of the motion, filed the affidavits of the demandant and her counsel, setting forth the proceedings in the district court in the cases referred to in the motion; and alleging that the district court had not obeyed the mandamus of this court, but had, in direct opposition to its injunctions, permitted great delay to take place in bringing the cases to a trial, after they had been reinstated in conformity with the order of this court.
Mr Jones contended, that, upon the affidavits, it was manifest that the proceedings of the district court amounted to a contempt of this court; and that the whole purposes which were to be accomplished by the mandamus had, in violation of the commands thereof, been defeated.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.