text:
United States v. Schurz

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

This is a petition for a mandamus, filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, Oct. 11, 1879. It alleges that the relator, Thomas McBride, was, in 1862, possessed of all the qualifications necessary to entitle him to pre-empt one hundred and sixty acres of the public lands of the United States; that he, in that year, settled upon a tract of public land known as the S. 1/2 of the N.E. 1/4 and lots 1 and 2 of section 6, T. 3, S. of R. 5 W., situate in the county of Tooele and Territory of Utah, containing a little less than one hundred and sixty acres, with intent to appropriate it under the laws of the United States, and has continuously inhabited, occupied, and cultivated it; that he, May 31, 1869, in due form and time, made, at the land-office in Salt Lake City, a homestead entry of it; that he occupied, cultivated, and resided upon it for more than five years thereafter, and, June 15, 1874, made due proof thereof, paid the fees, and received a final certificate therefor; that his said proofs and papers were duly forwarded to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, who found them to be in all respects in compliance with law, and such as to entitle the relator to a patent; that, in accordance with that finding, a patent for the tract was, Sept. 26, 1877, duly signed, sealed, and, by the Recorder of the General Land-Office, countersigned and recorded in the proper land records of the United States; that it was, Oct. 3, 1877, transmitted by the commissioner to the local land-officers at Salt Lake City, with instructions to deliver it to the relator, and was received by them; that he appeared at said land-office, and demanded of them to deliver the patent to him; that they refused to do so, because they had been instructed by the commissioner, Oct. 14, 1877, to return it; that it was so returned Oct. 22, 1878, and was then in the Department of the Interior, subject to the control of the Secretary of the Interior; that Carl Schurz is such Secretary; and that the relator, Oct. 6, 1879, demanded of him, at his office in the Department of the Interior, the delivery of said patent, but the Secretary, on the tenth day of that month, absolutely refused to deliver it. The petition prays that the writ of mandamus issue, directing the Secretary to deliver the patent to the relator.

The relator, pursuant to leave of the court, filed, Oct. 21, 1879, a supplemental petition.

The Secretary filed his answer on the twenty-fourth day of that month, setting up that the lands claimed by the relator were, at the time of his entry, within the incorporated limits of the city of Grantsville; that, without knowledge by the register of the local land-office that the tract was within those limits, the entry was admitted; that in 1874 the relator made final proof thereof; that in February, 1877, the mayor and corporate authorities of Grantsville applied to the register to make entry of its town site under the act of March 2, 1867; that their application included the land in question; that upon his refusal to permit the entry while the land was included in that of McBride, application was made, Feb. 24, 1877, to have the entry cancelled, as illegally and improvidently allowed, which application was duly forwarded by the register to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office; that prior to regular action thereon a patent was prepared, in September, 1877, signed and sealed, and transmitted on the third of the following month to the register, for delivery to McBride upon the surrender of the duplicate receipt; that afterward, upon taking up the record of contest for examination, the commissioner, discovering that the patent had been improvidently prepared and transmitted, ordered its recall; that it was thereupon returned by the register, no demand having been made for its delivery at the date of the receipt of the commissioner's instructions; that, upon the examination of the record of contest, the claim of McBride to the land was rejected by the commissioner, which rejection was, on appeal by the relator, affirmed by the acting Secretary of the Interior, and afterward by the respondent on review. The undelivered patent was then regularly cancelled, together with the entry upon which it was based.

The answer of the Secretary was accompanied by certain exhibits. The relator filed a replication thereto.

The following agreed statement of facts was signed by counsel for the respective parties:-

'Agreed Statement of Counsel.

'In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, this fourteenth day of November, 1879.

'THE UNITED STATES, ex relatione THOMAS MCBRIDE,}

vs.}

CARL SCHURZ, Secretary of the Department of the Interior.}

At law. No. 21,200.

'Be it remembered that on the hearing of this cause before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in general term, on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1879, it was conceded by both parties that all the allegations of the original petition were true, except the one that the premises named in the petition were in 1862 subject to pre-emption filing or homestead entry.

'It was also conceded that the case relating to said premises, set out in the answer of respondent, had been appealed from the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office to the Secretary of the Interior, and was pending before the said secretary at the time the demand for said patent was made on him, as set forth in the said original petition of relator, and for some days thereafter, and that at the time of said demand, and for some days thereafter, the said patent was, with the papers in said case, as an exhibit in said case, in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, and was not in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office.

'It was also conceded that the incorporated town of Grantsville, set forth in the answer of the respondent, was in fact the incorporated city of Grantsville, and that it was incorporated by the territorial legislature of Utah on the twelfth day of January, 1876, and that said act should be treated as referred to and made a part of this case.

'All other matters in said case stood upon the original and supplemental petition, the answer of respondent, and the replication thereto. There was no other or further proof or evidence offered by either party.

'One of the rules of this court is as follows:- '33. The joinder in issue may be—

"The plaintiff joins issue upon the defendant's first plea.

"The defendant joins issue upon the plaintiff's replication to the first plea.'

'And this form of joinder shall be deemed to be a denial of the substance of the pleading to which it relates, and an issue thereon.

'And thereupon the said court, upon the tenth day of November, 1879, upon the evidence and pleading aforesaid, gave judgment for the said respondent.

'The foregoing facts are stipulated to be a full and true statement of this case, and made part of the record therein.

'Nov. 14, 1879.

'W. H. SMITH,

'Att'y for Plff.

'U.J.BAXTER,

'Of Counsel for Respondent.

title: United States v. Schurz


text: Talk:United States v. Schurz

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:United States v. Schurz


text:
United States v. Schurz/Opinion of the Court

'Whereupon the court orders the said stipulation to be made of record in the case.'

Instead of an alternative writ of mandamus, a rule upon the Secretary to show cause was granted by the court. The case was heard upon the pleadings and the above agreed statement, and the rule discharged.

Thereupon the United States on the relation of McBride sued out this writ, and assigns for error that the court below erred in refusing to issue a mandamus in conformity to the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Walter H. Smith and Mr. James H. Mandeville for the relator.

1. The court below had jurisdiction. Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524. The whole question was fully and elaborately argued in that case, and the doctrine announced, that, by reason of the adoption of the laws of Maryland for the government of this part of the District, the Circuit Court, under the act of Feb. 27, 1801, which established it and defined its jurisdiction, could, as incident to its common-law powers, issue the writ to an executive officer of the United States, it at that time having general jurisdiction in cases at common law, and being the highest court of original jurisdiction in the District. That decision has been followed in all the subsequent cases. The Circuit Court has, it is true, been superseded by the court below; but the latter has the same powers, and the statutory provisions which were regarded as controlling in Kendall v. United States are still in force, and are as applicable to it as they were to the Circuit Court.

2. We admit that the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying into effect his supervisory and appellate power over the branches of the public service committed to his department is not subject to judicial control in matters involving the exercise of his judgment and discretion. When the demand in question was made there was no longer any scope for the exercise of either. He had but a plain ministerial duty to perform after the title had been transferred to McBride by the due execution and recording of the patent. Being a title by record, the delivery of the patent was not necessary to vest the land in individual proprietorship. Phillip's Lessee v. Irwin, 1 Tenn. 235; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 247; Cunningham v. Browning, 1 Bland, 304; Steele v. Loury, 4 Ohio, 72; Enfield v. Pennit, 8 N. H. 515; Lapeyre v. United States, 17 Wall. 191; LeRoy v. Clayton, 2 Sawyer, 496; LeRoy v. Jamison, 3 id. 391; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Lavergnes' Heirs v. Elkin, 17 La. 227; Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 387; Donner v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 510; Chipley v. Farris, 45 id. 539; Miller v. Ellis, 57 id. 73; People v. Livingston, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 255; Smalley v. McLain, 14 Ga. 254; Willis v. Jermin, Cro. Eliz. 167; Ex parte Beck, 1 Bro. C. C. 578; Ex parte Koop, 6 Ves. 599; Leighton's Case, 2 Vern. 173; O'Reilly's Case, 1 Ves. Jr. 112; Ex parte Kurtman, 3 Rich. (S.C..) Ch. 257; 3 Op. Atty.Gen. 654; Bacon's Abr., tit. Pre. F.; 2 Bl. Com. 344; 3 Wash. Real Prop. 520.

The lands covered by the patent having ceased to be a part of the public domain, the Secretary's jurisdiction to determine any conflicting claim to them absolutely ceased. He might as well have tried an action of ejectment for a parcel of ground in this city, or passed a decree to quiet the title thereto.

3. It has been urged that a patent is sometimes improvidently executed and recorded under a mistake of fact, or from error in law, and that public mischief and individual hardship will ensue if the Secretary has no authority to recall it before its delivery, and cause it to be cancelled and the record of it to be expunged.

To this we answer, First, that the destruction of a deed, after it has worked a transfer of title, does not reinvest the estate in the grantor. Secondly, that the assumption of a power not conferred by law finds no justification in the fact that a mischief may be thereby suppressed, or a private right maintained, even conceding that the power may in some hands be wisely exercised to secure what is believed to be a lawful end. If in the administration of the land system further powers should be vested in the Secretary of the Interior, Congress alone can confer them. Thirdly, that it is the exclusive province of the courts to avoid, in a direct proceeding, a patent which has been granted on a false suggestion, or by mistake. Bruner v. Manlove, 1 Scam. 161; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434; Doll v. Meader, 16 Cal. 295; Leese v. Clark, 18 id. 572; People v. Stratton, 25 id. 242; Brady v. Begum, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 529; State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223; Arnold v. Grimes, 2 Iowa, 85; Patterson v. Winn, 9 Pet. 663; Williams v. Carpenter, 33 Mo. 52.

4. In this case the Secretary, by withholding the patent and the exemplification of it, wrongfully deprives the relator of the indispensable evidence of his title, and the latter, having no other adequate remedy, is entitled to a ''mandamus. Marbury v. Madison'', 1 Cranch, 137.

5. The Secretary is the proper party defendant. Rev. Stat., sects. 441, 453.

The Attorney-General contra.

1. The court below has no jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to an executive officer of the United States. The statute which in Kendall v. The United States (12 Pet. 524), and in subsequent cases, was construed as vesting the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of the District with such jurisdiction has been repealed.

By the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia certain sections are substituted for that statute. They, if differing in language or effect from it, must prevail in all cases thereafter arising. Bowen v. United States, 100 U.S. 508.

Sect. 61 gave power to the legislative assembly to modify the practice and enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts of the District whenever necessary to the due execution and enforcement of the laws of the District.

Sect. 89 continued in force the organization of the judicial courts.

Sect. 91 continued in force the local municipal laws.

Sect. 92, which is first in importance in this connection, continued in force the laws of the State of Maryland not inconsistent with this title, as the same existed on the 27th of February, 1801, except as since modified or repealed by Congress or by authority thereof, or until so modified or repealed.

Sect. 93 declares that the Constitution and all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the District as elsewhere within the United States.

These are the existing provisions. They undoubtedly include the former laws of Maryland which, as local law, are necessary to the proper administration of justice in the District. The Maryland laws governing local matters, individual rights, and personal transactions are preserved for all the ends of municipal and local government. Whatever goes beyond this and relates to officers of the United States as such, whose duties are supposed to be the same whether in or out of the District, trenches upon the domain of Federal law, and must be considered as not local in its character. Such general laws must be applied with the same force and affect in the District of Columbia as elsewhere. Sect. 93. If no local reason exists for enlarging their scope, they have no exclusive application to the District.

The Revised Statutes vest the courts of the District with the same jurisdiction as that possessed and exercised by the Circuit and the District Courts of the United States. Sect. 763, as amended by the act of Feb. 27, 1877 (19 Stat. 253), grants the local jurisdiction necessary to the enforcement of the laws previously cited. Such jurisdiction was not included in that conferred upon the courts of the District as circuit and district courts. This jurisdiction is limited by sect. 767-769, with respect to original pleas; subordinate and inferior causes being confided to justices of the peace, under chapter 31 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia.

Now, while it is true that the statutes and the common law which prevailed in Maryland in 1801 were, by act of Congress, continued in force in this District, yet Kendall v. United States (supra) declares that the power of the Circuit Court to exercise the jurisdiction now in question resulted from the analogy which that court, as the highest judicial tribunal within the District, bore to the highest Maryland court, and that its power to issue a mandamus to an executive officer was conferred by the third section of the act of Feb. 27, 1801, giving it the same jurisdiction as the circuit courts of the United States then possessed under the act of Feb. 13, 1801. The subsequent repeal of the latter act, it was held, did not change within the District the jurisdiction previously vested. As that third section is repealed, the grant of 'the same jurisdiction as the circuit courts of the United States' which is made to the Supreme Court of the District by the act of revision, June 22, 1874, must be measured and determined by the law as it stood at the latter date. McClung v. Silliman (6 Wheat. 598) and McIntire v. Wood (7 Cranch, 504) expressly decide that since the repeal of the act of Feb. 13, 1801 (2 Stat. 89), by that of April 29, 1802 (2 Stat. 156), no such jurisdiction as that now claimed is vested in the circuit courts of the United States. It cannot, therefore, be exercised by the court below.

2. It is conceded by the counsel for the relator that such jurisdiction, if it exists, does not extend to the acts of the Secretary which involve the exercise of his judgment and discretion. The issue of a patent for public lands of the United States is such an act, and to render the instrument effectual delivery is essential.

This conclusion may be drawn from the language of the law. Sect. 453, Rev. Stat., requires the Commissioner of the General Land-Office to perform, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, 'all executive duties' which relate to 'the issuing of patents for all grants of land under the authority of the government.' Sect. 458 prescribes the requisites as to their form, signature, and record. Sect. 459 provides for a special officer to complete the issue, 'in pursuance of instructions from the commissioner,' by certifying, affixing the seal, engrossing, recording, and transmitting such patents. These are the prescribed 'executive duties' which relate to the issuing of the patent as previously assigned. Each statutory proceeding is essential to the operation of the whole.

In McGarrahan v. Mining Company (96 U.S. 316), it is said that 'the patent executed in the prescribed form which issues from the General Land-Office is made the instrument of passing title out of the United States.' Here it is obvious that the execution in the prescribed form is referred to as being quite distinct from, and independent of, the issue from the General Land-Office. Execution is not issue, nor does the patent issue by the record; for it is immediately said by the court that 'the record called for by the act of Congress is made by copying the patent to be issued into the book kept for that purpose. The effect of the record, therefore, is to show that an instrument such as is there copied has actually been prepared for issue from the General Land-Office.' The issue from the office must, in pursuance of this doctrine, mean something beyond and subsequent to the recording, and the next statutory duty named in sect. 459 is the 'transmission' of such patent. Here is the final executive duty connected with the instrument itself, and by it delivery to the patentee must be intended. It will not do to say that this does not mean delivery, without suggesting any other possible definition. The established regulations of the General Land-Office require this duty of the recorder, and rules are published governing the transmission of patents to the patentees through the intervention of the District land-officers as agents of the government, or directly from the General Land-Office, the possession of the instrument never being given up except upon surrender of the duplicate receipt, or proof, by affidavit, of its loss. For authority to establish such regulations, see Snyder v. Sickles, 98 U.S. 203; Rev. Stat. 2478.

Here, then, is an official executive act necessary to the complete issue of the patent, and essential to its operation to pass the title of the United States. The delivery, personally, by the recorder is said to be a better recognition of its validity than the record itself. McGarrahan v. Mining Company, supra. And again, in speaking of the effect of an imperfect instrument perfectly recorded, or a perfect instrument imperfectly recorded, to prove a grant, the court says, 'If a perfect patent has in fact issued, it must be proved in some other way than by the record.' p. 323.

The issue, which, it has been shown, is subsequent to the record, and can only mean delivery, is treated as the thing to be proved; all the matters of record are but instruments of evidence to establish the fact of issue. And so the court says: 'When a right to a patent is complete, and the last formalities of the law in respect to its execution and issue have been complied with by the officers of the government charged with that duty, the record will be treated as presumptive evidence of its delivery to and acceptance by the grantee.' And in the final clause it is said that the record will be treated as a perfect record of an imperfect instrument, 'until overcome by proof that the instrument as executed and delivered was valid.' The only reasonable inference from these repeated allusions to the delivery and possession of the patent is that delivery is deemed by this court to be essential to the complete issue of the patent and the conveyance of the legal title.

And to the same effect is Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530. It is there said: 'When the patent has been awarded to one of the contestants, and has been issued, delivered, and accepted, all right to control the title, or to decide on the right to the title, has passed from the land-office.' p. 532. Again: 'If. . . the patent. . . is delivered to and accepted by the party the title of the government passes with this delivery. With the title passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land, and over the title which it has conveyed.' p. 533. This moment of delivery and acceptance is the instant when authority and control over the title cease, and the issue is complete in law. Up to that moment executive authority and discretion continue, and the official functions, with which the courts cannot interfere, remain unimpaired in the officer having original power in the matter. The court says: 'The functions of that department necessarily cease when the title has passed from the government. And the title does so pass where, under the decisions of the officers having authority in the matter, a conveyance, generally called a patent, has been signed by the President, and sealed and delivered to and accepted by the grantee.' p. 533.

This has been declared to be the effect of executive acts, done within the scope of legal authority. Attention was specially directed to the action of the department in land cases. The inquiry of the court, on p. 534, was, 'If such a power exists, when does it cease?' The answer, three times asserted, fixes as the precise period of time the delivery and acceptance of the patent. The patentee, taking by matter of record the grant of the government, may rely on such record, after the complete issue and delivery of his patent, for proof that it was so delivered and accepted. The record is undoubtedly presumptive evidence of the delivery, as it is also of the validity of the grant; but it does not operate to complete title without such delivery. In 2 Bl. Com. 348, it is said that the king's grant, if he grants an estate contrary to law, or if his own title to the thing granted be different from what he supposes, is absolutely void. Washburn on Real Property (vol. iii. p. 520) says that the patent, 'when regularly and properly issued, becomes a complete evidence of title.'

It thus appears that delivery is essential to the issue of a patent. Up to that time, its regularity can be determined only by the Interior Department. The courts have not yet acquired jurisdiction. In Bell v. Hearne (19 How. 252) and Maguire v. Tyler (1 Black, 195, and 8 Wall. 664), patents had been prepared and delivered. The court held that, as there was no acceptance, the delivery was not good, and the recall and cancellation of them were proper, leaving the status of the land precisely as it had been before the instruments were recorded. In the first case, the patent had reached to true grantee, John Bell, but, by error in the certificate of entry, it had been executed in favor of James Bell, and by assignment the land had passed to other parties as his property. But the court sustained the recall of the surrendered patent against the claim of James Bell, who alleged that he was the grantee of record, and it gave as a reason, that the patent had never been delivered to him.

These cases cannot be explained except upon the theory that the delivery was essential; that a refusal to accept the patent prevented such delivery, and upon its return to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office he had power to cancel it and the record thereof, and deal with the lands according to their status before its execution. For, if the record proved title, the latter had passed without delivery, and to restore it a reconveyance would have been required. But the court says that the status of the land was the same after the recall as before the preparation of the patent. Never having been effectually delivered, its possession by the commissioner gave him jurisdiction for good cause to cancel it. Doswell v. De la Lanza, 20 How. 29; Phillips v. Shaw, 36 Ala. 189.

McBride can take nothing by the mere execution and recording of his patent without delivery. If a mistake in the condition of the title, or a want of authority to issue it, be discovered before completing its issue by delivery, no title or right depending on such execution passed to him, and the department may treat it as void, and proceed to dispose of the land according to law. The cases cited fully sustain this position. Title by matter of record, as shown by the authorities cited by his counsel, differs from feoffment only in not requiring livery of seisin to vest the title. It does not dispense with delivery of the instrument. This is true in most cases of deed by private individuals or municipal bodies in the American States, but the deed takes effect only from delivery. County of Calhoun v. American Emigrant Company, 93 U.S. 124.

3. Constructive delivery may and does exist where the grantor, in the exercise of his proper authority, places the deed in the hands of a stranger for the use of the grantee, or even in some cases where he retains possession, at the same time sufficiently manifesting his intention to treat it as having passed the title to the grantee. This doctrine cannot, however, prevail in this proceeding. The petition admits and the record shows that the instrument has never passed from the custody of the government, and McBride sues to compel its original delivery. He cannot now assert that there has already been a constructive delivery.

The latter cannot be presumed, for the further reason, that at the date of the demand the fact had become known to the proper officer that he had mistaken the true condition of the title, and was forbidden by law to issue the patent as the act and deed of the government.

The direction to a subordinate official to deliver it was to take effect only upon the express acceptance of McBride, accompanied by his surrender of the outstanding duplicate, or proof of its loss. This direction might be revoked upon discovery of sufficient reasons to defeat the efficacy of the patent, just as final delivery might have been refused by the commissioner had it remained in his personal custody. Before its preparation, and afterwards, the authorities of Grantsville claimed the land under the town-site law of 1867. 14 Stat. 541. There was a contest pending and undetermined before the land-office, between them and McBride, involving their respective rights. The patent was prepared, therefore, by some accident or mistake, in violation of law and the rules of the department. It necessarily follows that the power to adjudge whether it ought to issue had not been exercised by the Commissioner of the General Land-Office in the first instance, or by the Secretary on appeal. They were, therefore, not precluded from further examining and deciding the case according to the rules and regulations of the department. Nor could they deprive either contestant of the right to a full hearing by the delivery of an improvidently prepared patent to the other.

Lands within town-site limits are excluded from the operation of the homestead law. Hence, in 1869, McBride's entry was illegal, and a patent, if issued to him thereon for the land, would be equally so. 'No title can be held valid which has been acquired against law. . . . The patent of defendant having been for lands reserved for such appropriation is void.' Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284; Ross v. ''Doe ex dem. Barland'', 1 Pet. 655; Lindsey v. Miller's Lessee, 6 id. 666; Brown v. Clements, 3 How. 650; 5 Op. Att.-Gen. 9. Newhall v. Sanger (93 U.S. 761) holds in effect that the patents to the railroad company, not having been issued in 'compliance with the requirements of the acts of Congress, commonly known as the Pacific Railroad Acts,' were invalid and passed no title. So, in Leaven-worth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad Co. v. United States (id. 733), the certified lists of selected lands, furnished by the Commissioner of the General Land-Office to the Governor of Kansas, which, by statute (10 Stat. 346), have the force and effect of a patent, were pronounced void, as the lands were not subject to selection under the grant to that State for railroad purposes. To the same effect are Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160; Shepley et al. v. Cowan et al., 91 U.S. 330; Wirth v. Branson, 98 id. 118.

The case is this: By some inadvertence, a patent, which if delivered would pass no title, was prepared, signed, sealed, and recorded. The fact was discovered before the instrument had passed from the possession of the Interior Department, and before a decision as to McBride's right was made. It was withheld pending the final disposition of the contest involving the title to the land, and the decision has been rendered against him. As its delivery would be illegal, it is respectfully submitted that the Secretary cannot be compelled to do an act which is either unlawful or beyond his rightful jurisdiction and authority.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

Some question was made, on the argument in this court, as to the effect of the answer as evidence, and the practice in the Court of King's Bench, in England, had been referred to as making the return to the writ conclusive, or at least evidence, of all it states. We are relieved of any difficulty on this point by the stipulation of the parties.

No writ of mandamus, alternative or otherwise, was issued. There was, therefore, no technical return, and in strictness the rule applicable to such a writ does not apply. If, however, it could be held that the answer to the rule to show cause stands in the place of a return to a writ of mandamus, the parties have voluntarily made their own issues, and stipulated as to the evidence which shall be considered by the court.

By this stipulation the allegations of the original petition, except one which is specified, are to be taken as true. Certain other facts are then set out. It is then added that all other matters stand upon the original and supplemental petitions, the answer, and replication, and that there was no other or further proof offered by either party. As the replication distinctly put in issue every paragraph of the answer, as no evidence was offered in support of the answer, and as the rule of the court is recited which makes the replication in this case a denial of the substance of the pleading to which it relates, we must exclude the supplemental petition and the answer of the respondent as evidence, and decide the case on the allegations of the original petition and the facts stipulated in the agreed case.

We are met at the threshold of this inquiry by a denial of the authority of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to issue a writ of Mandamus, as an original process.

The argument is, that the jurisdiction of that court over this class of subjects is governed by sect. 760 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia. That section enacts that 'the Supreme Court shall possess the same power and exercise the same jurisdiction as the circuit courts of the United States.' As this court decided in McIntire v. Wood (7 Cranch, 504) and McClung v. Silliman (6 Wheat. 598) that the circuit courts of the United States possessed no such power, the argument would be perfect if no other powers on that subject existed in the Supreme Court of the District than what is conferred by the above section.

This court, in Kendall v. United States (12 Pet. 524), had under consideration the act of Feb. 27, 1801, organizing originally the courts of this District. It was held that the clause of the act declaring the laws of Maryland to be in force at that date in the part of the District ceded by her invested the Circuit Court, as it was then called, with this very power, because it was a common-law jurisdiction, and the common law on that subject was then in force in Maryland. This proposition has been repeatedly upheld by the court since that time, and up to the date of the revision it was no longer an open question that in a proper case the court had authority to issue the writ.

It is now said, however, that this section being enacted as of the first day of December, 1873, defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District as governed by the powers of the circuit courts of the United States over the same subject at that date, at which time it is clear these latter courts had no such power; and that, as the revision repealed all other laws on the same subject, the act concerning the law of Maryland no longer applied to the case.

This leaves out of the process of reasoning the ninety-second section of the revision, which declares again that 'the laws of the State of Maryland, not inconsistent with this title, as the same existed on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1801, except as since modified or repealed by Congress or by authority thereof, or until so modified or repealed, continue in force within the District.' Thus the argument is precisely the same as it was in Kendall v. United States, for it was urged there, as here, that as the act creating the court measured its jurisdiction by that of the circuit courts of the United States, which had no such jurisdiction, there could be none in the former; to which the court replied, the provision which continued in force the laws of Maryland.

The revision has merely separated the different sections of the act of Feb. 27, 1801, and placed part of it in sect. 760 and part of it in sect. 92. Neither provision is repealed, and we think that both of them are retained, with the construction placed on them by this court in Kendall v. United States and the subsequent cases. But this question would seem to be set at rest by the act of 1877, 'to perfect the revision of the Statutes of the United States, and of the statutes relating to the District of Columbia.' The act amends sect. 763 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District of Columbia, by enacting that 'said courts shall have cognizance of all crimes and offences committed within said District, and of all cases in law and equity between parties, both or either of which shall be resident or be found within said District, and also of all actions or suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, in which the United States shall be plaintiffs or complaints.' 19 Stat. 253.

We are of opinion that the authority to issue writs of mandamus in cases in which the parties are by the common law entitled to them is vested in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

We proceed to inquire whether the relator has made such a case.

If the relator was entitled to the possession of the patent as his property, and it was the plain duty of the Secretary to deliver it to when demanded, then, under all the authorities, and especially the decisions of this court, he is entitled to the remedy he asks. From the case of Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch, 137), down to the present time, such has been the settled doctrine of this court. And though it may be said that the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in that case was not necessary to the decision made, which was that this court had no original jurisdiction in that case, the principles of the opinion have since been repeatedly recognized and acted upon in this court, and the case cited with approval in its definition of the circumstances under which persons holding public offices will be compelled to perform certain duties which are merely ministerial. Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 524; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 id. 497; Kendall v. Stokes et al., 3 How. 87; Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522.

The next objection to issuing the writ which we are called to consider is that the Secretary, in deciding whether he would deliver the patent to McBride or not, was called upon to exercise a judgment and discretion on the case presented to him which were not merely ministerial, but which were rather judicial in their character, and in regard to which many matters were to be considered,-such as the validity of the title conferred by the patent, the circumstances under which it was signed, sealed, and recorded, and the conflicting rights of other parties to the lands covered by it. In short, that this execution of the patent concluded nothing, and the authority of the Secretary and the Commissioner of the General Land-Office to deal with the whole subject, including the relator's right to the lands, remained unaffected by the patent. Whether this be so or not must depend upon the authority conferred by Congress upon those officers, and the effect of the patent in the stage which it had reached when the demand for its possession was made by McBride.

The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Under this provision the sale of the public lands was placed by statute under the control of the Secretary of the Interior. To aid him in the performance of this duty, a bureau was created, at the head of which is the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, with many subordinates. To them, as a special tribunal, Congress confided the execution of the laws which regulate the surveying, the selling, and the general care of these lands.

Congress has also enacted a system of laws by which rights to these lands may be acquired, and the title of the government conveyed to the citizen. This court has with a strong hand upheld, the doctrine that so long as the legal title to these lands remained in the United States, and the proceedings for acquiring it were as yet in fieri, the courts would not interfere to control the exercise of the power thus vested in that tribunal. To that doctrine we still adhere.

But we have also held that when, by the action of these officers and of the President of the United States, in issuing a patent to a citizen, the title to the lands has passed from the government, the question as to the real ownership of them is open in the proper courts to all the considerations appropriate to the case. And this is so, whether the suit is by the United States to set aside the patent and recover back the title so conveyed, as in United States v. Stone (2 Wall. 525), or by an individual to cause the title conveyed by the patent to be held in trust for him by the patentee on account of equitable circumstances which entitle the complainant to such relief. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 id. 72, and other cases.

In the case before us it is said that the instrument called a patent, which purports in the name of the United States to convey to McBride the lands in controversy, is not effectual for that purpose for want of delivery. That though signed, sealed, countersigned, and recorded, and then sent to the register of the land-office at Salt Lake City for delivery to him, it never was so delivered, and has always remained under the control of the officers of the Land Department, and that the instrument is invalid as a deed of conveyance for want of delivery to the grantee. If it were conceded that delivery of the patent is essential to the transfer of title to the grantee, and that such dlivery is required as is necessary in a conveyance from man to man, it would be a question of some difficulty to decide whether such delivery took place in this case. The well-known principle by which the intention of the grantor in a deed to make an act which falls far short of manual delivery, to stand for delivery, when so designed, might well be applied to the act of the commissioner in transmitting the patent by mail to the local office for the purpose of delivery; while, on the other hand, it is argued with much force that the instrument never actually passed from the land-office or the control of its officers. We do not think the decision of this point necessary to the case before us.

We are of opinion that when, upon the decision of the proper office that the citizen has become entitled to a patent for a portion of the public lands, such a patent made out in that office is signed by the President, sealed with the seal of the General Land-Office, countersigned by the recorder of the land-office, and duly recorded in the record-book kept for that purpose, it becomes a solemn public act of the government of the United States, and needs no further delivery or other authentication to make it perfect and valid. In such case the title to the land conveyed passes by matter of record to the grantee, and the delivery which is required when a deed is made by a private individual is not necessary to give effect to the granting clause of the instrument.

The authorities on this subject are numerous and uniform. They have their origin in the decisions of the English courts upon the grants of the crown evidenced by instruments called there, as here, patents.

Blackstone describes four modes of alienation or transfer of title to real estate, which he calls common assurance: the first of which is by matter in pais or deed; the second by matter of record, or an assurance transacted only in the king's public courts of record; the third by special custom; and the fourth by devise in a last will or testament.

In the chapter devoted to alienation by deed he enumerates among the requisites to its validity the act of delivery. Book 2, c. 20. But in chapter 21, devoted to alienation by matter of record, nothing is said about delivery as necessary to pass the title, and under this head he includes the king's grants. These, he says, are all made matter of public record, and are contained in charters or letters-patent. He then recites the processes by which patents are prepared and perfected, the various officers through whose hands they pass, and the manner of affixing the seal to them, and their final enrolment. They are then perfect grants, and no mention is made of delivery as a prerequisite to their validity. After this they can only be revoked or annulled by scire facias or other judicial proceeding. The importance attached to the delivery of the deed in modern conveyancing arises largely from the fact that the deed has taken the place of the ancient livery of seisin in feudal times, when, in order to give effect to the enfeoffment of the new tenant, the act of delivering possession in a public and notorious manner was the essential evidence of the investiture of the title to the land. This became gradually diminished in importance until the manual delivery of a piece of the turf, and many other symbolical acts, became sufficient. When all this passed away, and the creation and transfer of estates in land by a written instrument, called the act or deed of the party, became the usual mode, the instrument was at first delivered on the land in lieu of livery of seisin. Shepherd's Touchstone, 54; Co. Litt. 266 b; Washburn, Real Property, book 3, 308. Finally, any delivery of the deed, or any act which the party intended to stand for such delivery, became effectual to pass the title. Church v. Gilman, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 656; Butler v. Baker, 3 Co. 25 b; Warren v. Swelt, 31 N. H. 332; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307.

But in regard to the transfer of title by matter of record, whether this record were a judgment or decree in a court of justice, as fines and recoveries, or the record made in the proper office (generally in the Court of Chancery by the Lord Chancellor) of the king's grant, called enrolment, no livery of seisin was necessary, nor any delivery of the document sealed with the king's seal; for when this seal was affixed to the instrument and the enrolment of it was made, no higher evidence could be had, nor was any other evidence necessary of this act or deed of the king. Hence, Mr. Cruise, in his Digest of the English Law of Real Property, says: 'The king's letters-patent need no delivery; nor his patents under the great seal of the Duchy of Lancaster; for they are sufficiently authenticated and completed by the annexing of the respective seals to them.' Title xxxiv. sect. 1, par. 3.

In Marbury v. Madison, to which we have already referred, the court, likening the commission of the justice of the peace, which was signed and sealed by the President and left in the hands of the Secretary of State, to a patent for lands, uses this language: 'By the act passed in 1796, authorizing the sale of lands above the mouth of the Kentucky River (vol. iii. p. 229), the purchaser, on paying his purchase-money, becomes completely entitled to the property purchased, and on producing to the Secretary of State the receipt of the Treasurer, upon a certificate required by the law, the President of the United States is authorized to grant him a patent. It is further enacted that all patents shall be countersigned by the Secretary of State and recorded in his office. If the Secretary of State should choose to withhold this patent, or the patent being lost should refuse a copy of it, can it be imagined that the law furnishes to the injured party no remedy? It is not believed that any person whatever would attempt to maintain such a proposition.'

In another part of the opinion it is said: 'In all cases of letters-patent, certain solemnities are required by law, which solemnities are the evidences of the validity of the instrument. A formal delivery to the person is not among them. In cases of commissions, the sign-manual of the President and the seal of the United States are those solemnities.'

The same principle is found in the opinion of the court, delivered by Mr. Justice Story, in Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229.

Many decisions of State courts of the highest character to the same effect are cited in the brief of counsel for the relator in this case, among which may be mentioned Ex parte Kuhtman, 3 Rich. (S.C..) Ch. 257; Donner v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 500. The subject is very fully and ably discussed by Mr. Justice Field in the case of Leroy v. Jamison, 3 Sawyer, 369.

It is also said that there was no acceptance of this patent by the grantee, and for that reason it is ineffectual to convey title. It is not necessary to enter into much discussion on this subject, because the acceptance of a deed may be presumed under circumstances far short of what was admitted to exist in tihis case.

The doctrine on this point is well stated by Attorney-General Crittenden, in the case of Pierre Mutelle, in 1841, as found in 3 Op. Att.-Gen. 654, which was a case like the present, in regard to the duty of the Secretary to deliver the patent then lying in the office.

'My opinion,' said he, 'is that the title to the land did pass to Pierre Mutelle at the date of the patent to him, though that patent still remains in the land-office without any actual tradition of it to any one. The patent was issued by authority and direction of law, and upon general principles, where the patentee does not expressly dissent, his assent and acceptance are to be presumed from the beneficial nature of the grant. But it is hardly necessary to resort to such presumptions, because, in this and in all such cases, the acts required to be done by the claimant, and actually done by him in the preparation of his claim for patenting, are equivalent to a positive demand of the patent and amount to an acceptance of it. The patent, in the meaning of the act referred to, is granted to the patentee from its date, though he may never actually see or receive it, and is valid and effectual to pass the title to the land.

'All legal muniments of title belong to him who owns the land,. . . but as the patent is a recorded evidence of title, always accessible, no material prejudice can result to the true owner from a stranger getting possession of it.'

The long pursuit of this claim by McBride, his repeated demand for the patent after it had been perfected, and his persistent effort to obtain possession of it, are ample proof of his acceptance of the grant of which it is the evidence.

It is argued with much plausibility that the relator was not entitled to the land by the laws of the United States, because it was not subject to homestead entry, and that the patent is, therefore, void, and the law will not require the Secretary to do a vain thing by delivering it, which may at the same time embarrass the rights of others in regard to the same land.

We are not prepared to say that if the patent is absolutely void, so that no right could possibly accrue to the plaintiff under it, the suggestion would not be a sound one.

But the distinction between a void and a voidable instrument, though sometimes a very nice one, is still a well-recognized distinction on which valuable rights often depend. And the case before us is one to which we think it is clearly applicable. To the officers of the Land Department, among whom we include the Secretary of the Interior, is confided, as we have already said, the administration of the laws concerning the sale of the public domain. The land in the present case had been surveyed, and, under their control, the land in that District generally had been opened to pre-emption, homestead entry, and sale. The question whether any particular tract, belonging to the government, was open to sale, pre-emption, or homestead right, is in every instance a question of law as applied to the facts for the determination of those officers. Their decision of such question and of conflicting claims to the same land by different parties is judicial in its character.

It is clear that the right and the duty of deciding all such questions belong to those officers, and the statutes have provided for original and appellate hearings in that department before the successive officers of higher grade up to the Secretary. They have, therefore, jurisdiction of such cases, and provision is made for the correction of errors in the exercise of that jurisdiction. When their decision of such a question is finally made and recorded in the shape of the patent, how can it be said that the instrument is absolutely void for such errors as these? If a patent should issue for land in the State of Massachusetts, where the government never had any, it would be absolutely void. If it should issue for land once owned by the government, but long before sold and conveyed by patent to another who held possession, it might be held void in a court of law on the production of the senior patent. But such is not the case before us. Here the question is whether this land had been withdrawn from the control of the Land Department by certain acts of other persons, which include it within the limits of an incorporated town. The whole question is one of disputed law and disputed facts. It was a question for the land-officers to consider and decide before they determined to issue McBride's patent. It was within their jurisdiction to do so. If they decided erroneously, the patent may be voidable, but not absolutely void.

The mode of avoiding it, if voidable, is not by arbitrarily WITHHOLDING IT, but by judicial proceedings to set it aside, or correct it if only partly wrong. It was within the province of those officers to sell the land, and to decide to whom and for what price it should be sold; and when, in accordance with their decision, it was sold, the money paid for it, and the grant carried into effect by a duly executed patent, that instrument carried with it the title of the United States to the land.

From the very nature of the functions performed by these officers, and from the fact that a transfer of the title from the United States to another owner follows their favorable action, it must result that at some stage or other of the proceedings their authority in the matter ceases.

It is equally clear that this period is, at the latest, precisely when the last act in the series essential to the transfer of title has been performed. Whenever this takes place, the land has ceased to be the land of the government; or, to speak in technical language, the legal title has passed from the government, and the power of these officers to deal with it has also passed away. The fact that the evidence of this transfer of title remains in the possession of the land-officers cannot restore the title to the United States or defeat that of the grantee, any more than the burning up of a man's title-deeds destroys his title.

What is this final act which closes the transaction?

In Marbury v. Madison (supra), this court was of opinion that when the commission of an officer was signed by the President and the seal of the United States affixed to it, the commission was complete, and the officer entitled to its possession could enforce its delivery by the writ of mandamus. In regard to patents for land, it may be somewhat different, and it is not necessary in this case to go quite so far.

But we may well consider that in all nations, as far as we know, where grants of the property of the government or of the crown are made by written instruments, provision is made for a record of these instruments in some public government office. Our experience in regard to Mexican, Spanish, and French grants of parts of the public domain purchased by us from those governments teaches us that such is the uniform law of those countries. We have already shown that under the English law all letters-patent are enrolled, and that this is the last act in the process of issuing a patent which is essential to its validity.

We are safe in saying that every State of the Union has similar provisions in reference to its grants of land, and it has been the effort of most of them to compel public record of all conveyances of land by individuals or corporations.

The acts of Congress provide for the record of all patents for land in an office, and in books kept for that purpose. An officer, called the Recorder, is appointed to make and to keep these records. He is required to record every patent before it is issued, and to countersing the instrument to be delivered to the grantee. This, then, is the final record of the transaction,-the legally prescribed act which completes what Blackstone calls 'title by record;' and when this is done, the grantee is invested with that title.

We do not say that there may not be rare cases where all this has been done, and yet the officer in possession of the patent be not compellable to deliver it to the grantee. If, for instance, the secretary whom the President is authorized by law to appoint to sign his name to the patent should do so when he has been forbidden by the President, or if, by some mere clerical mistake, the intention of the officer performing an essential part in the execution of the patent has been frustrated. It is not necessary to decide on all the hypothetical cases that could be imagined.

But we are of opinion that when all that we have mentioned has been consciously and purposely done by each officer engaged in it, and where these officers have been acting in a matter within the scope of their duties, the legal title to the land passlls to the grantee, and with it the right to the possession of theipatent.

No further authority to consider the patentee's case remains in the land-office. No right to consider whether he ought in equity, or on new information, to have the title or receive the patent. There remains the duty, simply ministerial, to deliver the patent to the owner,-a duty which, within all the definitions, can be enforced by the writ of mandamus.

It is not always that the ill consequences of a principle should control a court in deciding what the established law on a particular subject is, and in the delicate matter of controlling the action of a high officer of the executive branch of the government, it would certainly not alone be sufficient to justify judicial interposition. But it may tend to reconcile us to such action as we feel forced to take, under settled doctrines of the courts, to see that any other course would lead to irremediable injustice.

If the relator in this case cannot obtain his patent, he is wholly without remedy. He cannot sue the United States, in whom is the title in the absence of the patent; for the United States can be sued in no other court than the Court of Claims, and we have decided that that court has no jurisdiction in such a case. Bonner v. United States, 9 Wall. 156. There is no one else to sue, for the title is either in the relator or the United States. It may be many years before the city of Grantsville, the party now claiming against him, will get a patent, and it may never do so.

The relator is, therefore, utterly without remedy, if the land be rightfully his, until he can obtain possession of this evidence of his title.

On the other hand, when he obtains this possession, if there be any equitable reason why, as against the government, he should not have it,-if it has been issued without authority of law, or by mistake of facts, or by fraud of the grantee,-the United States can, by a bill in chancery, have a decree annulling the patent, or possibly a writ of scire facias. If another party (as the city of Grantsville) is, for any of the reasons cognizable in a court of equity, entitled, as against the relator, to have the title which the patent conveys to him, a court of chancery can give similar relief to the city as soon as the patent comes into his possession, or perhaps before. So that it is plain that by non-action of the Land Department the legal rights of the parties may remain indefinitely undecided, and those of the relator seriously embarrassed or totally defeated, while the delivery of the patent, under the writ of mandamus, opens to all the parties the portals of the courts where their rights can be judicially determined.

We are of opinion that the relator in the case, as presented to us, is entitled to the possession of the patent which he demanded, and that the writ of mandamus by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia is the appropriate remedy to enforce that right. The judgment of that court will be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to issue the writ; and it is

So ordered.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, dissenting.

I am unable to agree to this judgment. There are very few, if any, of the general principles of law so well stated in the opinion of the court, to which I do not give my assent. My objection is to the application which is made of them to the facts of this case.

In the stipulation of the parties, it is 'conceded that the case relating to said premises, set out in the answer of the respondent, had been appealed from the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office to the Secretary of the Interior, and was pending before the said Secretary at the time the demand for the patent was made on him, as set forth in the original petition of relator, and for some days thereafter, and that at the time of such demand, and for some days thereafter, the said patent was, with the papers in said case, as an exhibit in said case, in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, and was not in the General Land-Office.' This is, as I think, an admission that the case set out in the answer was pending, and permits us to look into the answer and ascertain what that case was. The facts on which the case rests may not be admitted, but the existence of the case as set out is.

Looking, then, to the answer, we find that case to have been as follows: On the 24th of February, 1877, the corporate authorities of the city of Grantsville made an application for the cancellation of the entry of McBride on the lands in controversy. This application was forwarded to the Commissioner of the General Land-Office for final adjudication and decision under the law and the established rules and practice of the department, and it came to a final decision by the Commissioner of the General Land-Office Feb. 7, 1879. On the 8th of April, 1879, McBride appealed to the Secretary of the Interior. In his appeal he claimed, 1st, that the decision of the commissioner was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence as shown in the record of the case, and, 2d, that the decision is contrary to the law of the case.

In the original petition for this mandamus it is stated that the patent was dated Sept. 26, 1877. It thus appears distinetly that when the patent was signed, sealed, and recorded there was a contest authorized by law pending in the department between McBride and the corporate authorities of Grantsville as to who had the better right, under the laws of Congress, to the land. It is not pretended that any formal decision was made by any of the department officers charged with that duty that the patent should issue. Under these circumstances it may fairly be inferred, irrespective of the positive averments to that effect in the answer, that the patent was improvidently issued through the neglect of some of the clerks having charge of the business details of the office. In my opinion, it was the imperative duty of the Commissioner of the Land-Office, when these facts were brought to his attention, to direct that the delivery of the patent be withheld.

I agree that, when the right to a patent has become complete, the execution and delivery of the patent itself are the mere ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty; and I further agree that when the right to a patent has been determined, and the patent has actually been signed, sealed, countersigned, and recorded, no actual delivery is necessary to pass the title. When the last formalities of the law prescribed for the due execution of a patent have been complied with, the grant is complete, if it has before that time been determined in some appropriate way that the right to the patent exists. Ordinarily, the due execution of the patent will be evidence of such a determination. But certainly, as between the United States and the patentee, such evidence will not be conclusive. Different questions may arise if the rights of third persons intervene; but, as between the original parties, until the patent ought to issue, it may, in my opinion, be recalled at any time before it gets out of the actual possession of the United States. In reality, it can convey only what the officers of the United States have the lawful right to grant; and, if it can convey nothing, the Secretary of the Interior ought not to be required by mandamus to do a vain thing.

The contest here was as to the right of McBride to his homestead entry. Confessedly, the land is within the incorporated city of Grantsville, and his entry was not made at the land-office until after the town was incorporated, although he settled on the land long before. It was a question, therefore, whether, under the circumstances, he had the right to his entry. That question was pending before the department in the ordinary course of proceedings when the patent was executed. It involved the investigation of facts. This is apparent, both from the case, as set forth in the petition, and the appeal papers which McBride himself filed. That the facts were disputed, too, is apparent from the statement in the appeal that the decision of the commissioner was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The patent ought not to have been executed if the entry was unlawful. Whether it was lawful or not was, at the time, the question at issue between McBride and the authorities of Grantsville in the contest then pending in the department. The law makes provision for such contests; and we have over and over again held that, in the absence of fraud, the decision of the officers on the facts is final. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72. As the right of McBride to a patent depended on the result of that contest, will the execution of the patent have the effect of a judgment on the facts before the hearing is concluded?

I will not pursue the subject further. Enough has already been said to show the grounds of my dissent. In my opinion, to direct the Secretary to deliver the patent is to give McBride execution in his pending suit before judgment rendered, and may lead to inextricable confusion.

NOTE.-A motion was subsequently made to modify the order that each party should pay his own costs, and to render judgment against the defendant for costs.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

Our first impression was that as the defendant was sued in regard to the manner in which he had discharged certain official duties as Secretary of the Interior, in which no intentional wrong was charged or proven against him, it would be unjust to make him pay the costs of the proceeding out of his own pocket.

But a careful examination of the authorities leaves us no option but to follow the rule that the prevailing party shall recover of the unsuccessful one the legal costs which he has expended in obtaining his rights.

In Kendall v. United States (12 Pet. 524), the leading case establishing the right of a citizen to the use of the writ of mandamus to compel a public officer to perform a duty merely ministerial, the relator recovered his costs. The duty in that, as in the present case, was one enjoined upon a cabinet officer, which he refused to perform. It is obvious that he thought he was right in refusing to do the act demanded of him, yet this court, as shown by the report of the case, rendered judgment for costs against him.

In United States v. Boutwell (17 Wall. 604), which was the case of a writ of mandamus against the defendant as Secretary of the Treasury, and which the court held to be abated by his retirement from office, it was said: 'It is the personal default of the defendant that warrants the impetration of the writ, and if a peremptory writ of mandamus be awarded, the costs must fall upon the defendant.' And it is argued that as it would be unjust to make the successor in office of the delinguent secretary pay the cost of defending the action of his predecessor, the writ must of necessity abate.

We cannot, in the face of these cases, refuse the order for costs, however much we might wish it were otherwise. There may be a contingent or other fund of the department out of which they can be paid. If there is none, Congress may provide for it or enact generally that when the officers of the government are sued with reference to the manner in which they have performed or failed to perform their official duties, they, as in revenue seizures and similar cases, shall be relieved from the expense of the suit if they have acted with good motives and upon reasonable grounds.

The relator must have judgment for his costs.


text: Talk:United States v. Schurz/Opinion of the Court


text:
Manufacturing Company v. Ladd

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. John S. Abbott and Mr. Henry W. Boardman for the appellant.

Mr. Charles E. Mitchell for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Manufacturing Company v. Ladd


text: Talk:Manufacturing Company v. Ladd

title: Talk:Manufacturing Company v. Ladd


text:
Manufacturing Company v. Ladd/Opinion of the Court

The Swain Turbine and Manufacturing Company filed a bill against James E. Ladd, alleging that the latter had infringed certain letters-patent owned by the company, which had been granted to Asa M. Swain on the 15th of May, 1860, for a new and improved water-wheel, and which had been surrendered and reissued on the 19th of November, 1872, numbered 5154. The bill sought an account of profits, damages for the infringement, and a perpetual injunction against further use of the alleged invention. The defendant filed an answer denying infringement, and assailing the patent of the complainant on various grounds, such as prior discovery and invention by other persons, illegality of the new issue, &c. Proofs having been taken and the cause heard, the Circuit Court dismissed the bill, on the ground that, according to the true construction of the patent sued on, the defendant did not infringe. The company thereupon appealed.

It was conceded that if the reissued patent should be construed literally, without restraining the generality of its claims by a reference to the original patent, the wheels made by the defendant would be an infringement; but the court, in view of the state of the art at the date of Swain's invention, and of the distinct limitation of that invention in the original patent to a wheel of specific construction and form, considered itself bound to construe the claims of the reissued patent in accordance with such limitation, in order to avoid the conclusion that it was for another and different invention from that originally patented. From a careful examination of the evidence in the case we are satisfied that this was the most favorable view that could have been taken for the complainant. A comparison of the original letters-patent, including the drawings and model, with the reissued patent, makes it very evident that the latter is the result of an effort to enlarge the scope of the patent so as to include and embrace within it matters and things that were not embraced in the original invention. The original specification, drawings, and model all agree in describing a specific wheel and associated apparatus as the subject of the invention secured by the letters-patent. They distinctly describe a wheel with its floats, each made of a single piece of metal, having their face sides, where the water strikes, of a paraboloidal form, with their bottoms formed by revolving the curves on their axes, and arranged in a particular direction to receive the water from the guides; and having the rim of the wheel covering the floats so curved as to force the water down rapidly in the lower curved parts or bottoms of the floats; the water being turned down between the curb and wheel and lower curb: they describe an annular chamber situated above and outside of the wheel, with slots in its bottom to receive and steady the guides when raised with the gate, and which is filled with water, forming a sort of stuffing-box: they describe a cylindrical gate, below the annular chamber surrounding the curb below the wheel, provided at the top with a flange to which the guides are attached, and which is opened by being lowered to let the water into the wheel through the guides, and is shut by being raised up to the bottom of the annular chamber: lastly, they describe a particular contrivance for adjusting the wheel on its step, which is of no consequence in the disposal of the present case. Substantially, this is the entire description: the wheel, formed and made as stated; the annular chamber; the cylindrical gate, with the guides attached to its flange; and the contrivance for adjusting the wheel on the step. There is also a description of the enclosing case and curbs, and the machinery for raising and lowering the gate and the wheel; but these parts have nothing to do with the controversy.

The claim of the patent was threefold: first, for the annular chamber, with slots in the bottom to receive the guides; secondly, the combined arrangement of the guides, the cylindrical gate, and the annular chamber, as unitedly related to the wheel; thirdly, the step arrangement. Here we have a clear and distinct specification of an invention, and of the particular machinery which is its subject-matter. The wheel is not claimed, either as to its form or fashion, or mode of operation; nothing is claimed but the annular chamber, the peculiar gate and guide arrangement, and the step adjustment,-none of which things are in controversy in this suit.

But a change comes over the scene: the patent becomes the property of a corporation that manufactures wheels; a monopoly of the business is very desirable; other manufacturers make turbine wheels approaching somewhat in appearance to that described in Swain's patent. The usual remedy in such cases is resorted to. A reissue of the patent is sought, with expanded claims, sufficiently general and comprehensive to embrace a wide monopoly of structure, and to shut up competing establishments. In this way the patent laws have been made the instruments of great injustice and oppression. The real object and design of a reissue of a patent have been abused and subverted. The intent of the law was to allow a correction to be made 'whenever a patent is inoperative, or invalid, by reason of a defective or insufficient description or specification, or by reason of the patentee's claiming in his specification as his own invention more than he has a right to claim as new; and when the error has arisen by inadvertency, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention.' These are the words of the law granting the right. It was never intended to allow a patent to be enlarged; but to allow the correction of mistakes inadvertently committed, and the restriction of claims which had been improperly made, or which had been made too broad,-just the contrary of that which has come to be the practice. In a clear case of mistake-not error in judgment-the patent may undoubtedly be enlarged; but that should be the exception, not the rule; whereas the enlargement of claims has become the rule, and their contraction the exception.

These remarks are well illustrated in the case before us. We have shown what was the original invention described and claimed. After the lapse of twelve years and a half the patentee (or rather his corporation assignee) discovers that through inadvertence and mistake his specification is wrong, and needs correction; and a reissue is obtained, with eleven different claims. These claims are quite different from those of the original patent, and are intended to give to the present proprietors a large and valuable monopoly. Here are some of the claims:--

1. A water-wheel, the floats of which have a discharge-line extending from the crown at their inner edge to the lower outer edge of the wheel.

2. The combination in a water-wheel of a crown, band, and floats, having their discharge-line extending from the crown at their inner edge to their lower outer edge.

3. The combination in a water-wheel of a crown and floats, having their discharge-line extending from the crown at their inner edge to the lower outer edge.

5. A water-wheel having an effective in ward flow and discharge of part of the water, and an effective downward flow and discharge of part of the water simultaneously in one wheel, whereby the effective area of discharge is increased without increasing the diameter of the wheel.

Here is a sweeping generalization, which, taken literally, would give to the patentee a monopoly of all water-wheels having simultaneously an effective inward and downward flow and discharge, whatever might be the shape of the floats, or of the crown. This was certainly not the invention described or suggested in the original patent. The invention of a wheel was not claimed at all: a wheel was described; but it was a wheel made after a particular pattern or form, and adjusted to a particular apparatus for the reception and discharge of the water. Its buckets were described as paraboloidal; its rim over the buckets curved downward and inward so as to force the water down rapidly in the lower curved parts or bottoms of the floats. No intimation is given that a wheel of a different form would answer the purposes of the invention. The defendant does not copy either of these features in his wheels. Their floats are not paraboloidal, but waving; the rim is not curved downward and inward, but is horizontal. It is very apparent why the claim has been generalized as it has been. The patentee desires to secure the monopoly of every centre-vent wheel, of whatever shape or form, which discharges the water both inwardly in the centre of the wheel and downwardly from the bottoms of the floats beneath the wheel. But that would be a new invention, very different from what was described and claimed in the original patent. To warrant this extension of the claim, the specification of the reissued patent contains material variations from that of the original, frequently stating that a particular part may be constructed thus and so, when the original required it to be thus and so; it speaks of 'the upper horizontal edge of the floats,' when no such thing is mentioned in the original, but on the contrary the rim over the floats was described as curving inward and downward, and as being so curved for a special purpose and effect. Instead of correcting inadvertent mistakes in the specification, which rendered the patent inoperative and void, the pretended corrections are evidently intended to widen the scope of the patent, and to make it embrace more than it did at first. So far as description went, the original specification was as perfect as the new one.

The mistake of the patentee (or his assigns) seems to have been in supposing that he was entitled to have inserted in a reissued patent all that he might have applied for and had inserted in his original patent. The appellant produced on the argument exhibits tending to show that the patentee before obtaining his original patent had made and done all those things which are embraced in or covered by the reissued patent. If this were true, it would be nothing to the purpose. A reissue can only be granted for the same invention which was originally patented. If it were otherwise, a door would be opened to the admission of the greatest frauds. Claims and pretensions shown to be unfounded at the time might, after the lapse of a few years, a change of officers in the Patent Office, the death of witnesses, and the dispersion of documents, be set up anew, and a reversal of the first decision obtained without an appeal, and without any knowledge of the previous investigations on the subject. New light breaking in upon the patentee as the progress of improvement goes on, and as other inventors enter the field, and his monopoly becomes less and less necessary to the public, might easily generate in his mind an idea that his invention was really more broad and comprehensive than had been set forth in the specification of his patent. It is easy to see how such new light would naturally be reflected, in a reissue of the patent, and how unjust it might be to third parties who had kept pace with the march of improvement. Hence there is no safe or just rule but that which confines a reissued patent to the same invention which was described or indicated in the original.

Since, therefore, any extension of the reissued patent beyond the scope of the invention set forth and fairly indicated in the original specification, drawings, and model, would be fatal to the patent itself, we think that the appellant ought to be satisfied with the course taken by the circuit judge in so construing the patent with reference to those original tests as to restrain and confine the intent and meaning of the claims within legitimate and admissible bounds. And so construed, there is no plausible pretence that the defendant is guilty of an infringement.

If the appellant insists on the broad construction of the claims in the new patent, it must take the risk of being met with previous achievements in the same line of improvement, which may very seriously endanger the validity of its patent. Several structures have been produced on the hearing, antedating the invention of Swain, and it would be very difficult to maintain that they do not embrace the principal feature in Swain's wheel, sought to be appropriated by him.

If the evidence with regard to Stowe's wheels, constructed in 1837, 1841, and 1850, is to be relied on, it is not a sufficient answer to say that they were merely spout-wheels, and were never used under water as turbines. They are substantially the same wheel as Swain's, and whether used as turbines, or only under the operation of a spout, they anticipate his structure. The mere change of use by placing them in a different position with regard to the water is not patentable.

The Temple wheel, the Whitney wheel, and the Greenleaf wheel all conduct the water in the same lines that Swain's does from its entrance into the wheel to its final departure from it; and if, on an investigation of dates, we should find that either of these wheels antedated Swain's invention, we should probably be forced to the conclusion that they each contained the fundamental element of a simultaneous inward and downward flow and discharge of water through the wheel, which the appellant claims as the principle of Swain's invention.

We do not deem it necessary to go into a more particular examination of the evidence at this time. We have examined it carefully, and have come to the conclusion that the view taken of the case by the Circuit Court was as favorable to the appellant as it could reasonably ask.

Decree affirmed.


text: Talk:Manufacturing Company v. Ladd/Opinion of the Court


text:
Daniels v. Tearney

ERROR to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of West Virginia.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Daniel B. Lucas for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Charles J. Faulkner, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Daniels v. Tearney


text: Talk:Daniels v. Tearney

title: Talk:Daniels v. Tearney


text:
Daniels v. Tearney/Opinion of the Court

This is a writ of error, brought to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia.

The case, as disclosed in the record, may be sufficiently stated for the purposes of this opinion, as follows:-- On the 18th of April, 1861, a convention of the State of Virginia passed an ordinance of secession, and on the 30th of that month a law entitled 'An Ordinance to provide against the sacrifice of property and to suspend proceedings in certain cases.' This ordinance declared that thereafter no execution (except in favor of the Commonwealth and against non-residents) should be issued, and that no sales should be made under deeds of trust or decrees without the consent of the parties interested, until otherwise provided by law; and that where executions were in the hands of the officer, whether levied or not, if the debtors should offer bond and security for the payment of the debt, interest, and costs, when the operation of the ordinance should cease, the property should be restored and the bond should be returned, as in the case of a forthcoming bond, and should be a lien on the realty of the obligors. If the debtor offered no bond, his property was to be appraised by three freeholders, at its value on the 6th of November, 1860, and unless the property would sell for the amount of the valuation, it should be restored to the debtor without lien.

The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, State of West Virginia, by Tearney and Wilson, executors of Colin C. Porter. The declaration sets forth that the defendants, on the first day of June, 1861, made their joint and several bond, whereby they bound themselves to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $1,597.18 when thereunto requested; and that there was a condition affixed to the bond, which was, 'that whereas, on the twenty-fifth day of March, 1861, a writ of fieri facias was issued from the clerk's office in the name of Colin C. Porter against Benjamin F. Daniels, for $747.92, with interest from the second day of January, 1860, until paid, and $31.97 costs; if, therefore, the said B. F. Daniels should pay the debt, interest, and costs, when the operation of the ordinance before mentioned should cease, then the obligation to be void, otherwise to be in full force.' It was averred that the operation of the ordinance had long since ceased, and yet that the defendants, though often requested so to do, had not paid the said sums of money or any part thereof, whereby an action had accrued, &c.

Among other pleas, the defendants filed one in hoec verba: 'For further plea to this action, the defendants say, that the bond in the declaration mentioned was executed by Benjamin F. Daniels, a citizen of the State of Illinois, as principal, and by William B. Daniels and D. M. Daniels, as his securities, in pursuance of the requirements and conditions of a statute passed in violation of the Constitution of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 30th of April, 1861, by the convention of the State of Virginia, and that said statute was subsidiary to and in aid of and in furtherance of the objects and policy of the ordinance of secession passed theretofore by said convention, to wit, on the ___ day of April, 1861, in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

'And the defendants say, that they rely on the fact that said statute and ordinance were in violation of and repugnant to the Constitution of the United States for their defence and plea in this case; and that they are unconstitutional the defendants are ready to verify.'

The plaintiff demurred. The court sustained the demurrer, and the defendants excepted. The parties thereupon waived a jury and submitted the case to the court, and a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendants removed the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals for review. That court affirmed the judgment, and this writ of error was thereupon sued out.

The objection raised as to the jurisdiction of this court is untenable.

In Home Insurance Co. v. City Council of Augusta (93 U.S. 116), we said: 'Where a judgment or decree is brought to this court by a writ of error to a State court for review, the case, to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction on our part, must come within one of three categories:--

'1. There must have been drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or authority exercised under, the United States; and the decision must have been against the claim which either was relied upon to maintain.

'2. Or there must have been drawn in question a statute of, or authority exercised under, a State, upon the ground of repugnance to the Constitution, or a law or treaty, of the United States; and the decision must have been in favor of the validity of the State law or authority in question.

'3. Or a right must have been claimed under the Constitution, or a treaty, or law of, or by virtue of a commission held or authority exercised under, the United States; and the decision must have been against the right so claimed. Rev. Stat. 132, sect. 709; Sevier v. Haskell, 14 Wall. 15; Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; McGuire v. The Commonwealth, 3 Wall. 385.'

The plea is neither full nor technical, but it does aver the invalidity of the statute under which the bond was taken, because it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and was passed 'in aid and furtherance of the objects and policy of the ordinance of secession,' and that the defendants 'rely on the fact that said statute and ordinance were in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, for their defence and plea in this case.' This implies clearly that the defendants claimed, in addition to what was averred, that the bond was void in every aspect, and that they had a right, by reason of the premises, to exemption from liability under it. What is thus averred in a pleading is as effectual as if it were expressed. Haight v. Holley, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 258.

It thus appears that there was drawn in question the authority of the sheriff, exercised under a law of the State, in taking the bond, and that the decision was in favor of the validity of that authority; and that there was also a right of exemption from liability, claimed under the Constitution of the United States, and that the decision was against the right so claimed. These claims give us jurisdiction. Whether they are well founded remains to be considered. Jurisdiction is only 'the right to hear and determine.' The result of its exercise is the judgment of the court.

That the ordinance of secession was void is a proposition we need not discuss. The affirmative has been settled by the arbitrament of arms and the repeated adjudications of this court. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700; Hickman v. Jones, 9 id. 197; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U.S. 193. It was supplemented and complemented by the statute authorizing the bond to be taken. The latter was one of a series of acts passed by the secession convention, all looking to the conflict of arms which was foreseen to be approaching. They were intended to prepare the State for the struggle, and were means to that end. The saving in the statute as to executions in favor of the Commonwealth and against non-residents was characteristic. It obviously contemplated the confiscation of the property of the latter as a war measure. We cannot doubt that the statute was invalid by reason of the treasonable motive and purpose by which its authors were animated in passing it. The provision that no executions should issue, and that no sales should be made under decrees or deeds of trust without the consent of the parties interested, 'until otherwise provided by law,' was clearly in conflict with the contract clause of the national Constitution. Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 id. 608; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595.

The circumstances which surrounded the convention and controlled its action are a part of the history of the times, and we are bound to take judicial notice of them. Brown v. Piper, 91 U.S. 37.

We have already pointed out the infirmities of the statute. One of them is expressly embodied in the bond. The condition is that the obligors shal pay when the statute under which it was taken 'ceases.' That is, that payment was to be made at the time of its cessation, and not before. In the mean time, the statute was to operate as a stay law, and the condition of the bond was framed accordingly. This, as we have shown, was directly repugnant to the constitutional provision which forbids the impairment of contracts by State laws. The bond, as a statutory instrument, cannot have more validity than the statute which prescribed it as the means of giving effect to the statute in the way it was intended to operate. To hold the bond valid as a statutory bond, and the statute void, would be an inversion of reason. Viewed in this light, it is void for exactly the same reasons that the statute is void. They rest on the same basis, and must stand or fall together. The creditor was not to be consulted. His assent was not required. So far as he was concerned, the sheriff could proceed in invitum. The option to give the bond or not was with the debtor. The presence or absence of the creditor, and his assent or dissent, were alike immaterial. He was powerless in any event to control the result.

The cases are numerous in which it has been held that where a bond contains conditions, some of which are legal and some illegal, and they are severable and separable, the former may be enforced and the latter disregarded. United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395. But this bond does not belong to that class. The condition is a unit, and indivisible. There are no separate elements into which it can be resolved. It must be considered as an entirety, and can be viewed in no other light. As a statutory bond, therefore, the instrument is clearly void. Whether it is void also as a voluntary bond is a point upon which the opinions of all the members of the court are not entirely in accord. We pass from the subject without further remark, because, irrespective of that question, there is a view decisive of the case, in regard to which we are unanimous and our minds are free from doubt.

Conceding the bond to have been wholly void in both aspects, it does not by any means follow that it could not thereafter, under any circumstances, be enforced as between the parties, or that there is such error in the judgment that it must necessarily be reversed.

A corporation is liable for negligent and malicious torts, including libel, assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. In such cases the plea of ultra vires is unavailing. The corporation is estopped from setting up such a defence. National Bank v. Graham, 100 U.S. 699.

The same result is produced in like manner in many instances where a corporation, having enjoyed the fruits of a contract fairly made, denies, when called to account, the existence of the corporate power to make it. Railway Company v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258.

The principle of estoppel thus applied has its foundation in a wise and salutary policy. It is a means of repose. It promotes fair dealing. It cannot be made an instrument of wrong or oppression, and it often gives triumph to right and justice, where nothing else known to our jurisprudence can, by its operation, secure those ends. Like the Statute of Limitations, it is a conservator, and without it society could not well go on.

If parties are in pari delicto, the law will help neither, but leaves them as it finds them. But if two persons are in delicto, but one less so than the other, the former may in many cases maintain an action for his benefit against the latter. White v. Franklin Bank, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 181.

It is not necessary here to consider the extent and limitations of the rule. They are fully examined in the authority referred to. In the case in hand the obligee must be deemed wholly innocent, because the contrary is not alleged, and it does not appear. Quod non apparet, non est. De non apparentibus et non existentibus, eadem est ratio. 'If the contract be executed, however, that is, if the wrong be already done, the illegality of the consideration does not confer on the party guilty of the wrong the right to renounce the contract; for the general rule is, that no man can take advantage of his own wrong, and the innocent party, therefore, is alone entitled to such a privilege.' 1 Story, Contr., sect. 610; Taylor v. Weld, 5 Mass. 108.

It is well settled as a general proposition, subject to certain exceptions not necessary to be here noted, that where a party has availed himself for his benefit of an unconstitutional law, he cannot, in a subsequent litigation with others not in that position, aver its unconsitutionality as a defence, although such unconstitutionality may have been pronounced by a competent judicial tribunal in another suit. In such cases the principle of estoppel applies with full force and conclusive effect. Ferguson v. Landram, 5 Bush (Ky.), 230. See Ferguson v. Landram, 1 id. 548; Van Hook v. Whitlock, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 43; Lee v. Tillotson, 24 id. 337; The People v. Murray, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 468; City of Burlington v. Gilbert, 31 Iowa, 356; B. C. R. & M. R. R. Co. v. Stewart, 39 id. 267.

In the case first cited, an injunction was applied for to prevent the collection of a tax authorized by an act of the legislature passed during the late civil war, to enable the people of a county to raise volunteers and thus avoid a draft for soldiers, and that object had been accomplished. In disposing of the case the court well asked, 'Upon what principle of exalted equity shall a man be permitted to receive a valuable consideration through a statute, procured by his own consent or subsequently sanctioned by him, or from which he derived an interest and consideration, and then keep the consideration, and repudiate the statute?' In United States v. Hodson (supra) this court said: 'When a bond is voluntarily entered into and the principal enjoys the benefits it was intended to secure, and a breach occurs, it is then too late to raise the question of its validity. The parties are estopped from availing themselves of such a defence.'

Not to apply the principle of estoppel to the bond in this case would, it seems to us, involve a mockery in judicial administration and a violation of the plainest principles of reason and justice.

Judgment affirmed.

NOTE.-Another case between the same parties was argued at the same time as was the preceding case. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE remarked, that there were no material points of difference between them, and that the opinion in the first case was decisive of the second.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Daniels v. Tearney/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Daniels v. Tearney/Opinion of the Court


text:
United States v. Knox (102 U.S. 422)

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. Charles W. Hornor for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles Case, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. Knox (102 U.S. 422)


text: Talk:United States v. Knox (102 U.S. 422)