Ex parte, In the Matter of Duncan Hennen
Decision Date | 01 January 1839 |
Citation | 10 L.Ed. 136,13 Pet. 225,38 U.S. 225 |
Parties | EX PARTE, IN THE MATTER OF DUNCAN N. HENNEN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
AT the August term, 1838, of the Court, Duncan N. Hennen filed a petition for a mandamus to the Honourable Philip K. Lawrence, judge of the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, requiring the said judge to restore Duncan N. Hennen to the office of clerk of the District Court.
Coxe, of counsel for the petitioner, filed and read the petition which was addressed to the Chief Justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court; setting forth that on the 21st day of February, 1834, the petitioner was appointed clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for the eastern district of Louisiana, by the Honourable Samuel H. Harper, judge of the District Court, and a commission was given to him appointing him to the said office.
The petitioner states that the appointment was accepted, and the same was recorded on the minutes of the District Court on the day of the appointment, and the oath of office, and a bond was given by the petitioner, with sureties, in conformity with the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, for the faithful performance of the duties of the said office; all of which was also entered on the minutes of the Court.
The petitioner further states, that Duncan N. Hennen entered on the duties of the office of clerk of the District Court for the eastern district of Louisiana, and held the same, and continued to perform the duties thereunto appertaining 'methodically, promptly, skilfully, and uprightly,' to the satisfaction of the said District Court, and of the parties suitors in the said Court. That by virtue of the appointment, and of the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, the petitioner was, also, from the period of the organization of the Circuit Court of the United States for the said district of Louisiana, in like manner, the clerk of the said Circuit Court, and performed all the duties appertaining to said office; and during the period aforesaid, the petitioner, in like manner, received the fees and emoluments of office belonging to the same.
The petitioner further states, that he so continued to perform the said duties, and to receive the said emoluments, and in all respects to hold and occupy said offices, until on or about the 18th day of May, in the year 1838, when he received a communication from the Honourable Philip K. Lawrence, then and now the judge of the said District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, in the following terms:——- 'New Orleans, May 18th, 1838.
'DEAR SIR:—The object of this communication is to apprize you of your removal from the office of clerk of the United States District Court of the eastern district of Louisiana, and of the appointment of Mr. John Winthrop in your place.
'In taking this step, I desire to be understood as neither prompted by any unfriendly disposition towards you personally, nor wishing to cast the slightest shade of censure on your official conduct.
'P. K. LAWRENCE,
'United States Judge, District of Louisiana.
'TO D. N. HENNEN, Esq.'
The petitioner proceeded to state, that on the 18th day of May, 1838, Judge Lawrence executed and delivered to John Winthrop a paper purporting to be a commission appointing him clerk of the District Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana; and that Mr. Winthrop, under and by virtue of that commission, claims a right to hold the said office, and does, in fact, to a certain extent, exercise the duties appertaining thereto; and he is by Judge Lawrence recognised as the only legal clerk of the District Court, and receives...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Libby
...U.S. 331, 343, 18 S.Ct. 374, 42 L.Ed. 767 (1898); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-98, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1880); Ex parte Hennen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 225, 229, 10 L.Ed. 136 (1839)). The Supreme Court's two most recent opinions on this subject, Morrison, 487 U.S. 654, 108 S.Ct. 2597, 101 L.Ed.2d......
-
Myers v. United States
...as a rule of constitutional and statutory construction, then generally conceded, has been recognized ever since. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259, 10 L. Ed. 138; Reagan v. United States, 182 U. S. 419, 21 S. Ct. 842, 45 L. Ed. 1162; Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U. S. 311, 315, 23 S. Ct.......
-
Arnett v. Kennedy 8212 1118
...Secombe, 19 How. 9, 14, 15 L.Ed. 565 (1857) (attorney and counsellor of court), or was subject to no conditions at all, Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 225, 10 L.Ed. 138 (1839) (clerk of the court), no hearing is required. See also Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99, 10 S.Ct. 431, 33 L.Ed. 825......
-
Edmond v. U.S.
...Clause purposes. Among the offices that we have found to be inferior are that of a district court clerk, Ex parte Hennen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 225, 229, 10 L.Ed. 136 (1839), an election supervisor, Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-398, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1880), a vice-consul charged temporarily ......
-
The new sovereignty and the old constitution: the chemical weapons convention and the Appointments Clause.
...its officers into two classes."). (51.) Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 (citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) and Ex Parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 225 (52.) Buckley, 424 U.S. at 126 n.162. (53.) 487 U.S. 654 (1988). (54.) 28 U.S.C. [sections] 49 et seq. (55.) Morrison, 487 U.S. at 671-72. (56......