United States Bernardin v. Butterworth
Decision Date | 21 March 1898 |
Docket Number | No. 404,404 |
Citation | 18 S.Ct. 441,169 U.S. 600,42 L.Ed. 873 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. BERNARDIN v. BUTTERWORTH |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
J. C. Dowell, for plaintiff in error.
Sol. Gen. Richards, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice SHR AS delivered the opinion of the court.
On March 23, 1895, John S. Seymour, commissioner of patents, on appeal in an interference proceeding between the applications of Alfred S. Bernardin and William H. Northall, decided that Bernardin was entitled to a patent for the invention involved in the interference. From this decision an appeal was taken by Northall to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, and the decision of the commissioner was by that court reversed. Northall v. Bernardin, 7 App. D. C. 452.
Bernardin then instituted proceedings in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, seeking to compel the commissioner to issue a patent in accordance with his previous decision, claiming that the act of congress approved February 9, 1893, which, in form, confers jurisdiction upon the court of appeals of the District of Columbia to hear appeals from the action of the commissioner of patents, is unconstitutional and void, in that it attempts to confer jurisdiction upon that court to review or reverse the action of the commissioner.
The supreme court of the District of Columbia dismissed the petition for mandamus, and, on appeal, the court of appeals of the District sustained the judgment of the supreme court. U. S. v. Seymour, 10 App. D. C. 294.
Thereafter John S. Seymour resigned his office as commissioner of patents, and, on April 12, 1897, Benjamin Butterworth was appointed his successor. On April 17, 1897, Bernardin filed a new petition for mandamus in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, which was dismissed, and that decision was, on appeal to the court of appeals of the District, on May 11, 1897, affirmed.
On May 25, 1897, a writ of error was allowed from this court, and, while the case was here pending, on January 16, 1898, Benjamin Butterworth died, and C. H. Duell was thereafter appointed to the office thus left vacant, and a motion has been made for leave to substitute Duell in the stead of Butterworth, notwithstanding that by the death of the latter the action had abated.
The question thus presented is not a novel one. In Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298, it was held that a judgment in mandamus ordering the performance of an official duty against an officer as if yet in office, when in fact he had gone out after service of the writ, and before the judgment, is void, and cannot be executed against his successor. In U. S. v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604, it was held that, in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary, a mandamus against an officer of the government abates on his death or retirement from office, and that his successor in office cannot be brought in by way of amendment of the proceeding, or on an order for the substitution of parties. The conclusion reached was put upon two independent grounds, and we quote the reasoning of the court, expressed in its opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Strong, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Lashly v. Wurdeman
... ... discussing the Boutwell case, the Supreme Court of the United ... States says, in Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, ... 165 U.S. 28, ... Butterworth, ... 169 U.S. 600, 42 L.Ed. 873, 18 S.Ct. 441, where it is pointed ... ...
-
Snyder v. Buck
...21 L.Ed. 721; Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U.S. 28, 31, 17 S.Ct. 225, 226, 41 L.Ed. 621; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U.S. 600, 18 S.Ct. 441, 42 L.Ed. 873. Congress changed the rule. It provided by the Act of February 8, 1899, 30 Stat. 822, that no action by ......
-
Acheson v. Fujiko Furusho
...against single heads of governmental departments, and the Supreme Court in Boutwell and again in U. S. ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 1898, 169 U.S. 600, 18 S.Ct. 441, 42 L.Ed. 873, expressed its opinion that legislation was needed. However, the possibility of injustices occurring was mo......
-
Allen v. Regents of University System of Georgia
...26 U.S.C.A. § 1580. 9 Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U.S. 1, 10, 11 S.Ct. 699, 35 L.Ed. 363; United States ex rel. Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U.S. 600, 603, 604, 18 S.Ct. 441, 42 L.Ed. 873; Philadelphia Company v. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605, 620, 621, 32 S.Ct. 340, 56 L.Ed. 570; Irwin v. Wright......