From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. MARVEL, ET AL

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 2, 1960
39 Del. Ch. 23 (Del. 1960)

Opinion

Supreme Court On Appeal, March 2, 1960.

Petition for a writ of mandamus to the Vice Chancellor requiring him to grant discovery. Petition dismissed.

Joseph P. Hurley, Wilmington, and Kenneth G. Speir of Speir, Stroberg Sizemore, Newton, Kan., for relators.

Aaron Finger of Richards, Layton Finger, Wilmington, and Norman T. Hayes, Jr., of Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for respondents.

SOUTHERLAND, C.J., and WOLCOTT and BRAMHALL, JJ., sitting.


The suit in the court below concerns a claim of plaintiffs (relators here) to be reimbursed for water claimed to have been withdrawn from and under their lands.

Plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants. (1) They asked for the production of certain documents; and (2) they took the deposition of the president of one of the defendants. The defendants objected to producing the documents, and, in the course of the deposition, also objected to certain questions put to the witness, who refused to answer them on advice of counsel.

The Vice Chancellor sustained the defendants on both points. He ruled that the documents sought and the questions objected to were improper. The reason for his ruling was this:

In his view plaintiffs' case consists of (1) a claim of interest in the water that is the subject matter of the suit, and (2) a right to an accounting for its value if that interest is established. The documents sought, and the questions put to the witness, pertained to the accounting issue only. Hence, in his opinion, the discovery sought was premature. See Terry v. Stull, 20 Del. Ch. 39, 46, 169 A. 739.

Plaintiffs, conceding that this decision is a nonappealable interlocutory ruling, seek a review thereof by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus. Defendants (in addition to other defenses) move to dismiss.

We do not reach the question of the correctness of the Vice Chancellor's ruling, because we are of opinion that the defendants' motion must be granted. Mandamus is not a proper remedy to control or reverse judicial action in a case in which the matter is interlocutory and can be subsequently reviewed on appeal. See Adair v. Pennewill, 34 Del. 390, 153 A. 859; National Bondholders Corporation v. McClintic, 4 Cir., 99 F.2d 595, 598; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Cir., 203 F.2d 149. Judge Chestnut's analysis of the principle in the McClintic case is directly in point here.

If we were to sanction the use of the writ to the extent urged by plaintiffs, it would result (in effect) in permitting appeals from all interlocutory procedural orders of the Court of Chancery. In this way we would reverse our settled line of decisions permitting appeals only from orders determining substantial issues. Such a perversion of the writ of mandamus may not be permitted.

The petition is dismissed.


Summaries of

WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. MARVEL, ET AL

Supreme Court of Delaware
Mar 2, 1960
39 Del. Ch. 23 (Del. 1960)
Case details for

WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. MARVEL, ET AL

Case Details

Full title:Matter of A.B. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of the class…

Court:Supreme Court of Delaware

Date published: Mar 2, 1960

Citations

39 Del. Ch. 23 (Del. 1960)
158 A.2d 486

Citing Cases

Norman v. State

It is of interest to note here that a similar attempt to expand the use of the writ of mandamus to review a…

Milford 2nd St. Players v. A.B.C. Com'n

Bay State Gas Co. v. State ex rel. Content, Del.Supr., 56 A. 1120, 1124 (1904). It may not be used as a…