Summary

Joseph McKenna United States Hall v. Payne — Opinion of the Court

The relator, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U.S. 316, 23 Sup. Ct. 698, 47 L. Ed. 1074; Ness v. Fisher, 223 U.S. 683, 32 Sup. Ct. 356, 56 L. Ed. 610.
We need not consider the fact that Kennedy, whose application was sustained, is not a party to the petition (see Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 9 Wall. 575, 578, 19 L. Ed. 681) ; nor need we consider whether a more appropriate remedy will be open to the relator.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna United States Hall v. Payne — Opinion of the Court

To the first question the court answered negatively, and to the second question replied, that 'independently of the question of the propriety of reviewing the action of the Secretary of the Interior in the pending case, it would seem that the decision rendered by him was one entirely permissible under the law.' The demurrer to the return was therefore overruled. Relator electing to stand upon it, the rule was discharged and the petition dismissed.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature