United States v. Eaton
Decision Date | 28 February 1898 |
Docket Number | No. 174,174 |
Citation | 18 S.Ct. 374,42 L.Ed. 767,169 U.S. 331 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. EATON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In October, 1890, Sempronius H. Boyed was commissioned as minister resident and consul general of the United States to Siam. He qualified and proceeded to his post, and was in June, 1892, engaged in the discharge of his official duties. At that time, being seriously ill, Boyd was granted by the president a leave of absence. Before leaving Bangkok, Siam, Boyd, to quote from the findings of fact, 'believing his illness would terminate fatally, and being desirous to protect the interests of the government during his absence, and until the then expected arrival from the United States of Robert M. Boyd, whom Sempronius Boyd desired should act as consul general, the latter called to his aid Lewis A. Eaton (now a plaintiff herein, who was then a missionary at Bangkok), and asked him to take charge of the consulate and its archives. Thereupon the following letter, dated June 21, 1892, was written by Boyd:
Boyd thereupon administered to Eaton an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office of vice consul general, etc. The findings state that Boyd believed he had authority for his action. Robert M. Boyd, who is referred to above, was then in the United States, and, although appointed as vice consul, had not qualified. Sempronius H. Boyd remained in Siam until the 12th day of July, 1892, when he left for the United States; and on his departure he turned over to Eaton, as the representative of the government of the United States, all the archives and property of the legation. Boyd arrived at his home, in the state of Missouri, on August 27, 1892; and although his leave of absence expired October 26, 1892, he did not, on account of illness, return to his post, but remained at his home, where he died June 22, 1894. Eaton, on the departure of Boyd, was the sole person On
On November 2, 1892, the secretary of state wrote Eaton, inclosing him the commission of Robert Boyd, which had been issued in 1891, as vice consul at Siam. In February, 1893, Robert Boyd appeared in Siam; and, in accordance with the instructions of the secretary of state, Eaton introduced him as vice consul, and on May 18th he qualified, when Eaton's performance of the duties of the office ceased. The findings below say:
'Eaton rendered to the accounting officers of the treasury his account for salary for the entire period of his service, in which he charged and claimed one-half of the salary of $5,000 per annum appropriated for said post of minister resident and consul general, from July 12, 1892, to October 26, 1892,—that is, from the departure of the minister to and including the date on which the leave of absence for sixty days (excluding transit time) expired,—and the full salary, at the rate of $5,000 per annum, from October 27, 1892, to May 17, 1893, inclusive.
'Eaton also rendered with his salary account a return of all fees collected during the entire period of his service, both fees official and unofficial, including fees notarial and fees and fines received in the United States consular court at Bangkok, amounting in all to $245.41.
'Eaton also rendered to the department of state his account of disbursements from the contingent fund of the legation and consulate general from July 1, 1892, to April 30, 1893, which was there approved.
'In the settlement of said accounts by the accounting officers of the treasury, the sum of $5.73, expended by Eaton for candles and lanterns, was suspended for information, which was thereafter furnished, but said sum remains disallowed and unpaid.
It is inferable from the facts found that the amount of compensation which the accounting officers of the government settled and allowed in favor of Eaton, as above stated, was withheld from him, because of a claim advanced by Sempronius H. Boyd to the entire salary as minister resident and consul general during a part of the time for which a portion of or the whole of the salary had been allowed Eaton. Indeed, on the 16th of June, 1894, Sempronius H. Boyd sued in the court below to recover his full salary as minister resident and consul general from July, 1892, to February 11, 1893. Thereupon, in December, 1894, Eaton commenced his action to recover the sums embraced in the following items:
as aforesaid........................... 5 73
----------
The court below consolidated the two cases, and, on its finding the facts above recited, rejected the claim of Sempronius H. Boyd, his widow having been substituted as a party plaintiff on his death, and allowed the full amount of the claim sued for by Eaton. From this judgment the United States alone appeals.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Pradt and Chas. W. Russell, for the United states.
John R. Garrison and John C. Chaney, for appellee.
Mr. Justice WHITE, after making the foregoing statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The errors relied upon to obtain a reversal rest on three contentions: (1) That the appointment of Eaton as acting vice consul was without warrant of law, and hence not susceptible of ratification by the state department. (2) Even if the appointment was authorized by law, the statute conferring the power was in violation of the constitution of the United States. (3) Because, even conceding the appointment to have been valid, the court allowed a sum in excess of the amount which the claimant was legally entitled to recover. We will dispose of these contentions in the order stated.
In the third paragraph of section 1674, Rev. St., the following definition is found: 'Vice consuls and vice commercial agents shall be deemed to denote consular officers, who shall be substituted, temporarily, to fill the places of consuls general, consuls or commercial agents, when they shall be temporarily absent or relieved from duty.' And this definition by congress of the nature of a vice consulship was not changed by the amendment to section 4130 of the Revised Statutes by the act of February 1, 1876, as the obvious purpose of that act was simply to provide that, where the words 'minister,' 'consul,' or 'consul general' were generally used, they should be taken also as embracing the subordinate officers who were to represent the principals in case of absence; in other words, that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nw. Immigrant Rights Project v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs.
...precedent. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 661-63 (1997); Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988); United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343 (1898). Logic also necessitates that result: Any Acting Secretary who was not appointed to that position (or to a germaneposition) by t......
-
U.S. v. Libby
...569; Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 352-54, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374 (1931); United States v. Eaton, 169 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.......
-
U.S. v. Sotomayor Vazquez
...45 L.Ed. 1162 (1901) (same); Rice v. Ames, 180 U.S. 371, 378, 21 S.Ct. 406, 45 L.Ed. 577 (1901) (same); United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343, 18 S.Ct. 374, 42 L.Ed. 767 (1898) (vice consuls); Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 397-98, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (election supervisors); In re Henn......
-
Sealed Case, In re
...(quoting In re Olson, 818 F.2d 34, 44 (D.C.Cir.Indep.Couns.Div.1987)). The district court relied upon United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343, 18 S.Ct. 374, 379, 42 L.Ed. 767 (1898), in which the Supreme Court stated that "[b]ecause the subordinate officer is charged with the performance ......
-
Federal Circuit Holds That Delegation Of Director Review In PTAB Proceedings Does Not Violate The Constitution
...officer on a temporary, acting basis." Arthrex, Slip Op. at 5. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898) that an inferior officer "charged with the duty of [a] superior for a limited time, and under special and temporary conditions," nee......
-
Agency Deference After Kisor v. Wilkie
...the Court put it in United States v. Midwest Oil Co., “government is a practical affair, intended for practical men.”25 On the other 22. 169 U.S. 331 (1898). 23. Id. at 331–35. 24. Id. at 343. 25. 236 U.S. 459, 472 (1915) (“It may be argued that while these facts and rulings prove a usage, ......
-
Gunfight at the New Deal Corral
...of a statute or agency rule is entitled to respect has a long history, well predating the New Deal. See, e.g. , United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343 (1898) (“The interpretation given to the regulations by the department charged with their execution, and by the official who has the pow......
-
Modern Vacancies, Ancient Remedy: How the De Facto Officer Doctrine Applies to Vacancies Act Violations (And How It Should).
...Legal Foundation. And he's questioned whether the federal government should own public lands at all."). (38.) United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331, 343 (1898); see also valerie C. Brannon, cong. Rsch. Serv., R44997, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview 29-35 (rev. 2021), https://perma.cc/M7R......
-
DUE DEFERENCE: KISOR, STINSON, AND THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
...United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2001))). (68) See Gillis, supra note 60, at 353. (69) United States v. Eaton. 169 U.S. 331, 343 (1898). Justice Gorsuch argues that the Court only considered the issue of deference after it concluded that the agency's interpretation was "......