
    SPANN et. al. v. SMITH, District Judge.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    September 5, 1917.)
    No. 1560.
    Mandamus <@=>58 — Judicial Proceedings — Enforcement of Mandate of Appellate Court.
    A petition held to state no ground for a writ of mandamus to compel a District Judge to comply with the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Petition by H. F. Spann, P. N. Spann, and M. S. Spann, copartners as Spann Bros., for a writ of mandamus, directed to Henry A. M. Smith, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern' District of South Carolina.
    Dismissed.
    See, also, 238 Fed. 338, 151 C. C. A. 354.
    S. G. Mayfield, of Denmark, S. C., and Alexander Akerman, of Macon, Ga., for petitioner's.
    J. N. Nathans, of Charleston, S. C., for the respondent.
    Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and WADDILL and ROSE, District Judges.
   PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus, in which it is alleged that the court below has refused tO' enforce the mandate of this court. It appears from the record that the court below, in its order disposing of the motion pending in the lower court, made the following entry:

“ * * * That any application the complainant may make for a rehearing in the cause or a review of the original decree must be instituted before the first day of the term of this court to be held in the city of Columbia on the first Tuesday of November, 1917, or the court will proceed to a final decree herein under the mandate and opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals and the testimony in the cause.”

We find nothing in this order to justify us in assuming that the learned judge who tried the cause is at all inclined to disregard the mandate of this court. Therefore, under the circumstances, we think that the petition should be dismissed. 
      
        QzaFov other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes*
     