History
  • No items yet
midpage
Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney
286 F.2d 170
| 3rd Cir. | 1961
|
Check Treatment

286 F.2d 170

BYRAM CONCRETANKS, INC., Petitioner
v.
Honorable Thomas F. MEANEY, Respondent.

No. 13483.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted December 27, 1960.

Decided January 19, 1961.

Frankel & Frankel, Paterson, N. J., for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

This is an action for mandamus brought against one of the district judges for the District of New Jersey. The allegation complains that the district judge unduly restricted the applicant in his interrogatories in a pending litigation and that he acted contrary to what one of his fellow judges had ordered on the same point. We think that this is not a proper case for mandamus. TCF Film Corp. v. Gourley, 3 Cir., 1957, 240 F.2d 711. This Court has said many times that mandamus is not to be taken as a substitute for appeal. E. g., Green v. Murphy, 3 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 591. The district judge was acting in a case which was before him and the action he took was within his authority. If he was wrong the error can be corrected on appeal. The petition will be denied.

Case Details

Case Name: Byram Concretanks, Inc. v. Honorable Thomas F. Meaney
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date Published: Jan 19, 1961
Citation: 286 F.2d 170
Docket Number: 13483
Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.