Mellos v. Brownell, 13942.
| Decision Date | 21 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 13942.,13942. |
| Citation | 250 F.2d 35 |
| Parties | Athanasios MELLOS et al., Appellants, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, and National Surety Corporation, a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Ernest M. Shalowitz, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Louis E. Spiegler and Sol M. Alpher, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Thomas McGrail, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee Brownell.
Messrs. Arthur C. Bailey, Bernard J. Gallagher and J. Roy Thompson, Jr., Washington, D. C., entered appearance for appellee National Surety Corp.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellants are aliens, who last entered the United States as temporary visitors on November 6, 1948. Thereafter, through the National Surety Company, they executed departure bonds conditioned upon their departure at the expiration of their temporary visit in the United States. The obligee in the bonds was the United States of America. Extension of this temporary stay was granted until October 19, 1950.
On July 13, 1951, the Immigration and Naturalization Service declared the bonds breached by appellants due to their failure to depart the United States by October 19, 1950.
By a private bill enacted into law May 21, 1952, appellants were granted permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of the Act.1
Appellee Attorney General, through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, demanded payment in full of the bonds by the surety. Whereupon, appellants filed this proceeding for declaratory judgment decreeing that the departure bonds have not been breached. Upon trial, the District Court ordered the complaint dismissed on its merits. This appeal followed.
We are met, at the threshold of this appeal, with a point not raised in the District Court or by counsel here, namely, whether the complaint should be dismissed as a suit against the United States to which it has not consented. This is the sort of jurisdictional question which may be raised at any time, either by the parties or by the court sua sponte.
Adler v. Brownell, 1957, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 55, 242 F.2d 28, makes it clear that the suit here "is in effect one against the United States to which it has neither been made a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flaherty v. Ross
...parties or by the court sua sponte.’ " Brown v. Sec'y of the Army , 78 F.3d 645, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Mellos v. Brownell , 250 F.2d 35, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (per curiam) ). Ordinarily, § 702 of the APA provides a waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when a plaintiff......
-
Livingston Parish Police Jury v. Acadiana Shipyard
...v. United States, 850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1312, 103 L.Ed.2d 581 (1989); Mellos v. Brownell, 250 F.2d 35 (D.C.Cir.1957). Further, unless Congress authorizes suit against the sovereign in state court, the principle of sovereign immunity bars the exe......
-
Rasmus v. State of Ariz.
...at any stage of the proceedings. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 678, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1363, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). See Mellos v. Brownell, 250 F.2d 35, 36 (D.C.Cir.1957) ("Whether the complaint should be dismissed as a suit against the United States to which it has not consented ... is the ......
-
Martyniuk v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
...may be asserted at any time, State of Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 59 S.Ct. 292, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939); Mellos v. Brownell, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 67, 250 F.2d 35 (1958), it follows that it is not subject to estoppel and consequently cannot be waived and was not here waived in assertin......