Degge v. Frank Hitchcock No 157 Mytton Maury v. Frank Hitchcock No 158
| Decision Date | 26 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 157 and 158,s. 157 and 158 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 1135,33 S.Ct. 639,229 U.S. 162 |
| Parties | W. W. DEGGE, the Wellington Association, the Wellington Development Company, and the Wellington Investment Company, Plffs. in Err., v. FRANK H. HITCHCOCK, as Postmaster General of the United States. NO 157. MYTTON MAURY, Thomas E. Irvine, O. J. Watrous, John A. Webber, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. FRANK H. HITCHCOCK, as Postmaster General of the United States. NO 158 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In 1909 complaint was made to the postal authorities that W. W. Degge and the Wellington corporations, of which he was president, were using the mails in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme. Notice was given to Degge and the corporations, and a hearing was had before the officer to whom, under the Postal Regulations, the disposition of this class of cases was committed. He found that the charges were true, and to his finding he attached a copy of all the evidence which had been taken. The report was confirmed by the Postmaster General, who issued an order directing the postmaster at Boulder, Colorado, not to deliver mail addressed to Degge or to these corporations, but to return all such letters to the sender with the word 'Fraudulent' plainly stamped on the envelop. Rev. Stat. §§ 3929, 4041, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 2686, 2749.
Degge, the corporations, and some of the stockholders, thereafter filed petitions in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, alleging that the officer before whom the hearing had been had was without power to make report on which the Postmaster General had acted; that there was no testimony to show the existence of a fraud- ulent scheme, and no evidence whatever to support the finding. It was alleged that the order was arbitrary, in excess of the power of the Postmaster General, and void. The petitioners prayed that the court would issue writs of certiorari directing the Postmaster General to certify the record to the court, and that upon hearing and review thereof the court would set aside the order. A rule to show cause was granted. The Postmaster General demurred on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to issue the writ, and subject thereto answered, attaching the record and the evidence on the hearing before the officer of the Postoffice Department having charge of the Fraud Orders investigations.
The case was heard by the supreme court of the District of Columbia on petition, demurrer, and answer. After a hearing the court dismissed the case. The court of appeals of the District, without passing on the right to issue the writ, affirmed the judgment upon the ground that the evidence supported the order. The petitioners appealed, and on the argument in this court, the government renews the contention that the district court was without jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari to the Postmaster General.
Messrs. O. A. Erdman and Walter B. Guy for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 164-167 intentionally omitted] Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. Louis G. Bissell for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 167-169 intentionally omitted] Statement by Mr. Justice Lamar:
Mr. Justice Lamar, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is the first instance, so far as we can find, in which a Federal court has been asked to issue a writ of certiorari to review a ruling by an executive officer of the United States government. That at once suggests that the failure to make such application has been due to the conceded want of power to issue the writ to such officers. For, since the adoption of the Constitution, there have been countless rulings by heads of Departments that directly affected personal and property rights, and where the writ of certiorari, if available, would have furnished an effective method by which to test the validity of quasi judicial orders under attack. The modern decisions cited to sustain the power of the court to act in the present case are based on state procedure and statutes that authorize the writ to issue not only to inferior tribunals, boards, assessors, and administrative officers, but even to the chief executive of a state in proceedings where a quasi judicial order has been made. But none...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub Co v. Burleson
...U.S. 497, 24 Sup. Ct. 789, 48 L. Ed. 1092, and that with which the court refused to interfere by certiorari in Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U.S. 162, 33 Sup. Ct. 639, 57 L. Ed. 1135, involved merely decisions of this nature. In American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S. 94, 23 Su......
-
Jeffries v. Olesen
...ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 1921, 255 U. S. 407, 41 S.Ct. 352, 65 L.Ed. 704; Degge v. Hitchcock, 1913, 229 U.S. 162, 33 S.Ct. 639, 57 L.Ed. 1135; Smith v. Hitchcock, 1912, 226 U.S. 53, 33 S.Ct. 6, 57 L.Ed. 119; Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 1904, 194 U.S. 106, 24......
- Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT & T
-
Harris v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
... ... Chester, P. & Ste. G. Ry. Co., 158 Mo.App. 249, 138 S.W ... 660. Callier obtained ... ...
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...by appeal, error, mandamus, prohibition, or otherwise--"rest[s] entirely in the discretion of Congress." Id.; see also Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U.S. 162, 170-71 (1913) (describing the historical evolution of the writ of (221) See PFANDER, supranote 131, at 92 (observing that the Supreme Cour......
-
EQUITY AND THE SOVEREIGN.
...and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 939, 948-949 (2011); see also Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U.S. 162, 170-71 (1913); see generally JAFFE, supra note 4. at (89) See Pfander & Wentzel, supra note 9, at 1280. (90) Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S......
-
A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case Against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790s.
...supra note 579, at 160. (585.) Pfander & Wentzel, supra note 577, at 1301; BAKER, supra note 579, at 160. (586.) Degge v. Hitchcock, 229 U.S. 162, 169-70 (1913) ("This case is the first instance, so far as we can find, in which a Federal court has been asked to issue a writ of certiorar......