In re Atlantic City Company

[635] of Pennsylvania, but is an inhabitant and citizen of the district and state of New Jersey.' The general power of the court to issue a writ of mandamus to an inferior court to take jurisdiction of a cause when it refuses to do so is settled by a long train of decisions; but mandamus only lies, as a general rule, where there is no other adequate remedy; nor can it be availed of as a writ of error. In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U.S. 451, 11 Sup. Ct. 141; In re Morrison, 147 U.S. 14, 13 Sup. Ct. 246; Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U.S. 794; Ex parte Baltimore & O. R. Co., 108 U.S. 566, 2 Sup. Ct. 876. In Re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 14 Sup. Ct. 221, the bill was filed in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York against a corporation and certain other defendants, and was dismissed against the corporation for want of jurisdiction. From that order complainant took an appeal to this court, which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the order, not disposing of the case as to all the defendants, was not a final decree from which an appeal would lie. 148 U.S. 262, 13 Sup. Ct. 590. Thereupon an application was made to this court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the judges of the circuit court to take jurisdiction, and to proceed against the company in the suit. Leave was granted, and a rule to show cause entered thereon, upon the return to which the writ of mandamus was awarded. In this case, however, the circuit court entertained jurisdiction, and the petitioner has its remedy by appeal, if a decree should pass against it. The objection to the jurisdiction presented by filing the demurrer, for the special and single purpose of raising it, would not be waived by answering to the merits upon the demurrer being overruled. Pacific Co.

v.

Denton, 146 U.S. 202, 13 Sup. Ct. 44. To direct the exercise of jurisdiction is quite different from a mandate not to do so, and we think we should not interpose at this stage of the case in the manner desired. Leave denied. Texas & P R Co v. Manton [17SCt216,164US636,41LEd580]  17 S.Ct. 216 164 U.S. 636  41 L.Ed. 580 TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. MANTON.

No. 88.

January 4, 1897.

In January, 1889, one Bloom, describing herself as a resident of Lamar county, Tex., brought an action in the district court of that county against the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company and John C. Brown, receiver of said company, claiming damages for personal injuries received while traveling as a passenger on said railroad. The railroad company and Brown, the receiver, respectively filed petitions for the removal of the suit into the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas. The district court refused to grant the removal, to which ruling the defendants duly excepted. Pending the making up of the issue, John C. Brown, the receiver, died. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $6,000. The cause was then taken to the supreme court of Texas, where, for error of the district court in refusing the petition for removal, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded. 20 S. W. 133.

In June, 1893, the case came for trial in the circuit court of the United States, and the plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for the sum of $8,000, and on a writ of error that judgment was, on January 30, 1894, affirmed by the United States circuit court of appeals for the Fifth circuit. 23 U.S. App. 143, 9 C. C. A. 300, and 60 Fed. 979. The case was then brought on error to this court. The plaintiff, Bloom, having died, Charles Manton entered an appearance as her administrator.

John F. Dillon, Winslow S. Pierce, and David D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

James G. Dudley, A. H. Garland, and R. C. Garland, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.