United States v. Mellon
Citation | 32 F.2d 415 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 4851.,4851. |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. AMERICAN SILVER PRODUCERS' ASS'N et al. v. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
J. Harry Covington, Spencer Gordon, and C. S. Thomas, all of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Leo. A. Rover, E. J. Cunningham, Donald V. Hunter, and Clyde Y. Morris, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Appellants, relators below, appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing their petition for a writ of mandamus to compel defendants, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Mint, to make purchases of silver under what is known as the Pittman Act. 40 Stat. 535.
Section 1 of the act, among other things, provides:
Section 2 provides in part as follows:
Section 3 provides:
It appears that under the terms of section 3 of the act, the Secretary of the Treasury, by formal allocations, allocated a certain amount of silver to the Director of the Mint for subsidiary coinage. These allocations, it is contended, should be regarded as sales or resales under the provisions of section 3 of the act. It is urged that in such cases a mandatory duty was laid upon the Secretary of the Treasury to immediately direct the Director of the Mint to purchase a corresponding amount of silver from American producers at $1 per ounce. These purchases have not been made to take the place of silver so allocated for subsidiary coinage, and it is to compel the defendants by writ of mandamus to make such purchases that this suit was brought.
The court below dismissed the petition on the ground that the relators were not sufficiently interested in the subject-matter alleged to maintain the action. Without considering the merits of the case, we are of opinion that the disposition of the case by the court below can be sustained. The relator, American Silver Producers' Association, is described in the petition as "a corporation organized not for profit under the laws of Utah, the objects and purposes of which are to advise, aid and support legislation and other procedure looking to the lowering of cost of production, reduction and transportation of silver and the orderly marketing of the same, the elimination of discrimination against the industry, and to subserve, promote and protect the interest of all those engaged in the production of silver in the United States and elsewhere, and in that behalf to prosecute any and all lines of activity which may subserve and promote the welfare of the silver mining industry and those engaged therein." A list of the members of the association is attached to the petition as Exhibit A. It appears that the members of the association are engaged in the production of silver from mines situated in the United States and in the sale of silver produced from such mines, and in the conduct of reduction works in the United States. The relators, Della S. Consolidated Mines Company and Spar Consolidated Mines Company, are described in the petition as "Corporations organized under the laws of Colorado, and are engaged in the production of silver from mines situated in the United States and in the sale of silver the product of mines situated in the United States and of reduction works so located."
The trial justice, in his able opinion in this case, analyzed the status of the relators as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Public Utilities Commission, 8995.
...372, 67 L.Ed. 673; Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 58 S.Ct. 300, 82 L. Ed. 374; United States ex rel. American Silver Producers' Association v. Mellon, 59 App.D.C. 24, 32 F.2d 415; United States ex rel. Alsop Process Company v. Wilson, 33 App.D.C. 472. 9 Federal Communications Com......
-
Childs v. U.S. Bd. of Parole
...statute, did not confer jurisdiction because "the office of mandamus is to enforce and not establish a right.' United States v. Mellon, 59 U.S.App.D.C. 24, 32 F.2d 415 (1929), certiorari denied 280 U.S. 561, 50 S.Ct. 19, 74 L.Ed. 616; Stowell v. Deming, 57 App.D.C. 223, 19 F.2d 697 (1927) c......
-
United States v. Coe
...L.Ed. 1250; United States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 51 S.Ct. 502, 75 L.Ed. 1148; United States ex rel. American Silver Producers' Ass'n v. Mellon, 59 App.D.C. 24, 32 F.2d 415, 280 U.S. 561, 50 S.Ct. 19, 74 L. Ed. The Commissioner takes the position that if the patentee is wi......
-
Frahn v. Tennessee Valley Authority
...the cases of Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, 262 U.S. 447, 43 S.Ct. 597, 67 L.Ed. 1078, and United States ex rel. American Silver Producers' Association v. Mellon, 59 App. D.C. 24, 32 F.2d 415, 418, certiorari denied, 1929, 280 U.S. 561, 50 S.Ct. 19, 74 L.Ed. 616, from this case. In the latt......