Ex Parte Roe, 234 U.S. 70 (1914)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 234 U.S. 64, click here.

Ex Parte Roe


No. 13, Original


Argued April 6, 1914
Decided May 25, 1914
234 U.S. 70

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Syllabus

When a federal court decides that a case removable from a state court on independent grounds is not made otherwise by § 6 of the Employers’ Liability Act, the decision is a judicial act done in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by law, and, even if erroneous, is not open to collateral attack, but only subject to correction in an appropriate appellate proceeding.

The authorized mode of reviewing such a ruling in an action at law is by writ of error from the final judgment. Judicial Code, §§ 128, 238. The writ of mandamus lies to compel the exercise by a judicial officer of existing jurisdiction, but not to control his decision.

Mandamus may not be used to correct alleged error in a refusal to remand, especially where the order may be reviewed after final judgment on writ of error or appeal. Ex Parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363.

The facts, which involve the Removal Acts and also the construction of the provisions of § 6 of the Employers’ Liability Act of 1908 as amended in 1910 relating to removal of causes arising under the latter act, are stated in the opinion.