Appleby v. Cluss

• Decision Date: 10 April 1908
• Citation: 160 F. 984
• Parties: APPLEBY et al. v. CLUSS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

160 F. 984

APPLEBY et al. v. CLUSS.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

April 10, 1908

Peter and John Bentley, for complainants.

John B Vreeland and H. P. Lindabury, for defendant.

LANNING District Judge.

By their bill the complainants pray for an injunction to restrain the defendant, who is the postmaster at Leonia N.J., from obeying a fraud order, issued on December 5, 1906 by the Postmaster General. The order declares that it has 'been made to appear to the Postmaster General upon evidence satisfactory to him' that J. Randolph Appleby the Appleby & Wood Company, and the Asbury Company, 'are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. ' The bill shows that on October 20, 1906, the complainant Appleby was charged with having engaged, under his own name and the names of the companies above mentioned, in conducting a scheme to obtain money through the mails fraudulently, by buying worthless land in New Jersey, dividing it into small tracts, advertising the tracts in newspapers, and inducing persons to buy the land and pay him money therefor by false and fraudulent representations regarding the character of the land.

The bill also shows that Appleby and his companies were thereupon duly notified of the charge, and that they were cited to appear and answer the charge on November 1, 1906, and that appearance was made and an affidavit filed by Appleby. The objections to the Postmaster General's order are two: First, that the sections of the law under which the proceedings were had are unconstitutional; and, second, that the order was not supported by the law or the proofs adduced before the Postmaster General. The first ground of objection was abandoned, on the argument, in view of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497, 24 Sup.Ct. 789, 48 L.Ed. 1092. The second ground of objection is equally untenable. It is true that all facts well averred in the bill must, inasmuch as the present hearing is on a demurrer to the bill, be deemed true. But a federal court will not weigh the facts adduced before the Postmaster General in order to determine whether the court's judgment on the facts will accord with his. It will only look into those facts for the purpose of determining whether, in any aspect of the case, they are covered by any act of Congress or support a conclusion of fraud. The Postmaster General is the head of one of the executive departments of the government, and his acts will not be interfered with by the judicial department except upon proof of some legal error on his part.

In the present case, the bill of complaint fails utterly to show what facts were before the Postmaster General. There is an averment that the complainant Appleby submitted an affidavit a copy of which is annexed to the bill, but there is no averment that...