Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Stearns v. Brigadier General George Wood
| Decision Date | 18 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 647,647 |
| Citation | 236 U.S. 75,59 L.Ed. 475,35 S.Ct. 229 |
| Parties | LIEUTENANT COLONEL DANIEL C. STEARNS, Appt., v. BRIGADIER GENERAL GEORGE H. WOOD |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Harvey R. Keeler and Fred C. Geiger for appellant.
Messrs. Hubert J. Turney, Nathan William MacChesney, Don R. Sipe, and Francis J. Wing for appellee.
This is a direct appeal from the district court, which held that the original bill states no cause of action. It must be dismissed unless the case involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of a Federal statute is fairly drawn in question.
The only serious attempt to show that appellant has a direct personal interest in the subject presented is found in the section of the bill which alleges that he is now serving as a major in the inspector general's department of the Ohio National Guard, and is aggrieved because defendant Wood, the adjutant general of the state, is about to put into full force and effect a general order issued by command of the Secretary of War, and known as circular No. 8, which, without right or authority, directs that the maximum rank of senior officers in complainant's department shall be a lieutenant colonel, and if this is done he will be prevented from attaining and serving in the higher rank permitted by the existing laws of Ohio.
Sec. 3 of the military law (act of January 21, 1903, chap. 196), 32 Stat. at L. 775, as amended by the act of May 27, 1908, chap. 204, 35 Stat. at L. 399, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 3044, provides that on and after January 21, 1910, the organization, armament, and discipline of the organized militia in the several states, territories, and the District of Columbia, shall be the same as that which is now or may hereafter be preseribed for the regular Army of the United States, subject in time of peace to such general exceptions as may be authorized by the Secretary of War. Exercising his discretion, the Secretary of War directed the issuance of circular No. 8, to become effective January 1, 1914. It is comprehensive in terms and prescribes general regulations concerning the members, officers, and organization of the state militia. The validity of the order is denied.
The bill further avers that the adjutant general of Ohio has issued an order with respect to the mobilization of the National Guard of that state, wherein he commands that upon any declaration of war all furloughs shall be revoked and all the officers and soldiers shall assemble and proceed wherever directed by the President, whether within or without the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fleming v. United States, No. 14-CF-1074
...that the particular facts of a case matter is precisely why advisory opinions are generally condemned. See Stearns v. Wood , 236 U.S. 75, 78, 35 S.Ct. 229, 59 L.Ed. 475 (1915) ("The province of courts is to decide real controversies, not to discuss abstract propositions."); see also United ......
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor, Local Union No 103, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Adory
...Evans, 213 U.S. 297, 301, 29 S.Ct. 507, 508, 53 L.Ed. 803; Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U.S. 75, 35 .Ct. 229, 59 L.Ed. 475; Coffman v. Breeze Corps., supra. It has long been its considered practice not to decide abstract, hypotheti......
-
Coleman v. Miller
...who have some specialized interest of their own to vindicate, apart from a political concern which belongs to all. Stearns v. Wood, 236 U.S. 75, 35 S.Ct. 229, 59 L.Ed. 475; Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 42 S.Ct. 274, 66 L.Ed. In the familiar language of jurisdiction, these Kansas legis......
-
National Maritime Union of America v. Herzog
...Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, c. 372, ? 1 et seq., 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. ? 151 et seq. 4 Cf. Stearns v. Wood, 236 U.S. 75, 78, 35 S.Ct. 229, 230, 59 L.Ed. 475, where the Supreme Court said: "The general orders referred to in the bill do not directly violate or threaten interferen......