
    EX PARTE: IN THE MATTER OF SKINNER & EDDY CORPORATION, PETITIONER
    [58 C. Cls. 663; 265 U. S. 86]
    Rule on the Court of Claims directing it to show cause why it should not be required by mandamus, or by prohibition, to restore an order dismissing a suit, to set aside another vacating the first, and to abstain from attempting eKercise of further jurisdiction in the case. The Supreme Court decided:
    1. The right of a plaintiff to dismiss a suit, if it exists, is absolute, independent of the reasons offered and not affected by concealment or misstatement of reasons.
    2. The rule of the Federal courts at law and in equity, governing the right of a plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice should obtain in the Court of Claims.
    3. A plaintiff in the Court of Claims may dismiss without prejudice when the Government has filed no counterclaim, and will not be prejudiced, legally, by the dismissal.
    4. Where a plaintiff, after dismissing its suit in the Court of Claims, began a suit in a State court against tlie Shipping Board on the same cause of action, which remained pending, held, that the subject matter was withdrawn from the cognizance of the Court of Claims by Judicial Code, section 154, and that it could not resume its jurisdiction by sett.ng aside the dismissal retroactively.
    5. An order of the Court of Claims attempting to reinstate a dismissed case in plain violation of the plaintiff’s right to dismiss it, and an effect of which would be to deprive the plaintiff of the right of trial by jury iii a State court, maybe corrected by mandamus.
    Writ absolute.
   Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered tlie opinion of the Supreme Court May 12, 1924.  