Thompson v. United States

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Citation: 26 L.Ed. 521,103 U.S. 480
• Parties: THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

103 U.S. 480

103 U.S. 480

26 L.Ed. 521

THOMPSONv.UNITED STATES.

October Term, 1880

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.

The facts are stated in the

ERROR to the Circuit Court

Mr. H. F. Severens for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. M. J. Smiley, contra.

Mr. JUSTICE BRADLEYdelivered the opinion of the court.

This case arises upon a petition fof a mandamus to compel Thompson, the township clerk of the township of Lincoln, in the county of Berrien, State of Michigan, to make and deliver to the supervisor of the township a certified copy of a judgment recovered against it by the Cambria Iron Company, the petitioner, in order to its being placed upon the tax-roll for collection and payment.The questions arising are much the same as those disposed of in the case of Edwards v. United States, supra, p. 471.The petition states that the Cambria Iron Company recovered judgment against the township of Lincoln, in the Circuit Court of the United States, on the 29th of May, 1876, for the sum of $6,273.32, besides costs, and caused to be delivered a certified copy thereof to Thompson, the township clerk, with a request to certify it to the supervisor, to be raised by tax on the township; but that Thompson declared that he would not do it, and pretended that there was no supervisor; that one Mitchell Spillman, who had been supervisor, had resigned; and that if there were any supervisor, still he would not do it; that he himself had resigned, and was not clerk of the township; that the supervisor and himself had both resigned for the express purpose of defeating the collection of the petitioner's judgment, and other similar claims.The petition charges that the said supervisor and clerk have fraudulently combined to cheat and defraud the petitioner by falsely pretending to resign, whereas they actually continue to discharge the duties of their offices,—setting forth various facts corroborative of the charge.

The court below having granted a rule to show cause why a mandamus as prayed for should not issue, the defendant filed an answer to the petition, admitting that a judgment had been entered against the township, as stated in the petition, but averring that it was not a valid judgment, because, as the answer alleged, the court never obtained jurisdiction; that no service was ever had of process in the cause upon the supervisor of the township; that Alonzo D. Brown, upon whom service was made, was not at the time supervisor; and that, although one Clapp, an attorney, appeared for the township, he was never employed by the township; that the defendant was, it is true, duly elected clerk of the township in April, 1876, but that he resigned his office before the certified copy of the judgment was served upon him, by filing in the office of the clerk (that is, his own office) and depositing with the files of the township a written resignation addressed to the township board; and that he has not acted as clerk since.He admits that he refused to certify the judgment, but did so because he was not clerk, and because there was no supervisor, Spillman, who had been supervisor, having resigned.This answer was demurred to, but the demurrer was overruled and the cause came on for trial.The jury rendered a special verdict, as follows:——

'First, That on the twenty-third day of November, 1875, Alonzo Brown, upon whom the declaration was served in the original case of The Cambria Iron Company v. The Township of Lincoln, was supervisor of said township of Lincoln, and was such supervisor at the time the declaration in said cause was served upon him as such supervisor by the marshal.

'Second, That George S. Clapp, who entered his appearance as attorney for the defendant in said cause, and appeared and pleaded therein for said township of Lincoln, was duly authorized by said defendant to appear and plead for it in said cause.

'Third, That the respondent, John F. B. Thompson, was, at the time of the service of the order to show cause why a mandamus should not issue against him, clerk of the said township of Lincoln, and still is such clerk, and has not resigned the said office.

'Fourth, That Mitchell Spillman was, at the time the said order to show cause was served, the supervisor of said township, and still holds the said office, and held the said office on October 1, A.D. 1876.'

The questions raised on the trial were, as in the previous case of Edwards, whether the tender of a resignation by the supervisor or the clerk of a township, by filing the same with the clerk, was valid and effectual as a resignation, so as to discharge the officer of his official character, without an acceptance by the township board, or an appointment to fill the vacancy.Such a resignation was relied on to show that Brown, on whom process in the original action was served, was not supervisor, and that Spillman was not supervisor, and the defendant was not clerk when the present proceedings were commenced.As we have fully discussed this question in the previous case, it is not necessary to say anything further on the subject.The ruling of the court below was in conformity with our decision in that case.This also disposes of the question of the appearance of Clapp, the attorney in the original action, he having been employed by Brown, the supervisor.

Another question raised at the trial was, whether the petitioner might show the motive and intent with which the supervisor and clerk attempted to resign, with a view to show that it was done for the purpose of defranding the...