Webster v. Fall, 149
| Decision Date | 05 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 149,149 |
| Citation | 266 U.S. 507,69 L.Ed. 411,45 S.Ct. 148 |
| Parties | WEBSTER v. FALL, Secretary of the Interior, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Preston A. Shinn, of Pawhuska, Okl., for appellant.
The Attorney General, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from page 508 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, an adult member of the Osage Tribe of Indians and without a certificate of competency, brought this suit against the Secretary of the Interior, Wright, the superintendent of the Osage Agency, and Wise, a special disbursing agent charged with the duty of paying and disbursing funds and moneys due individual Osage Indians, to secure a mandatory injunction commanding and requiring that moneys and funds due appellant under the Act of March 3, 1921, § 4, c. 120, 41 Stat. 1249, 1250, be assigned and paid over to him, alleging that the same was being unlawfully withheld. The act requires the Secretary to cause to be paid to each adult member of the Osage Tribe not having a certificate of competency one thousand dollars quarterly, etc., payments to be made under the supervision of the superintendent of the Osage Agency. But section 2087, Rev. Stats. (Comp. St. § 4056), provides:
'No annuities, or moneys, or goods, shall be paid or distributed to Indians while they are under the influence of any description of intoxicating liquor, or while there are good and sufficient reasons leading the officers or agents, whose duty it may be to make such payments or distribution, to believe that there is any species of intoxicating liquor within convenient reach of the Indians,' etc.
In virtue of this provision payments to appellant were refused. This refusal is attacked by the bill of complaint upon the ground that section 2087 and all orders, rules, or regulations issued thereunder by the Secretary of the Interior, in so far as appellant is concerned, are unconstitutional. The facts upon which it was determined that appellant came within the statutory prohibition are not in question.
There has been no service upon the Secretary, and he has not appeared in the suit. The other defendants were served, the case went to trial, and the bill, after a hearing was dismissed for want of equity and on the merits. But the suit was one which required the presence of the Secretary, and the bill should have been dismissed for want of a necessary party. Gnerich v. Rutter, 265 U. S. 388, 44 S. Ct. 532, 68 L. Ed. 1068; Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28, 34, 17 S. Ct. 225, 41 L. Ed. 621. The statutory direction to case quarterly payments to be made (subject to section 2087) is addressed to the Secretary. The power and responsibility are his. Neither Wright nor Wise have any primary authority in the matter. They can act only under, and in virtue of, the Secretary's general or special direction. In the absence of it no payments or disbursements properly can be made. Authority in the superintendent to supervise such payments is not authority to cause them to be made. The statement of this court in the Gnerich Case (page 391 ) is pertinent here:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Robertson
...of the use of habeas corpus to assert the claim was not raised, and hence was not decided.") (concurring opinion); Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925) ("Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as......
-
Ostrander v. Williams (In re Williams), CASE NO. 11-42792-DML-7
...the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents." Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1927). Courts have noted that even if an appellate court has previously upheld relief granted by a bankruptcy court under a statute......
-
In re Jaritz Industries, Ltd.
...which a point is neither raised by counsel or discussed in the court's opinion is not binding precedent); Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511, 45 S.Ct. 148, 149, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925) ("Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are......
-
Margaret v. Treen
...of them may be inferred." Illinois State Board of Elections, 440 U.S. at 183, 99 S.Ct. at 989 (quoting Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511, 45 S.Ct. 148, 149, 69 L.Ed. 411 (1925). Further, "summary actions ... should not be understood as breaking new ground but as applying principles establi......
-
Legal arguments that had better be avoided.
...his official superior was an indispensable party, the Government argued that Gnerich v. Rutter, 265 U. S. 388, and Webster v. Fall, 266 U. S. 507, were utterly inconsistent with Colorado v. Toll, 268 U. S. 228; it urged, therefore, that the latter case be squarely overruled. The Court held ......
-
INDEX OF CASES
...Ambler Realty Co. (272 U. S. 365) 150 Evatt; Hooven & Allison Co. v. (324 U. S. 652) 109 Ex parte (See name of party)F Fall; Webster v. (266 U. S. 507) 109, 210 Family Ins. Co.; Daniel v. (336 U. S. 220) 145 Fanning; Williams v. (332 U. S. 490) 108, 210, 241 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.; Pollo......
-
Tyler G. Banks, Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute: the Second Circuit?s Misstep Around General Principles of Law in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
...Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 188–96 (2d Cir. 2010) (Leval, J., concurring),cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 472 (2011).376 Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925).See, e.g., Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 582 F.3d 244, 261 n.12 (2d Cir. 2009) (assuming without decid......
-
More about the number of citations.
...278 U. S. 235; Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 303 U. S. 419.[16] 332 U. S. 490.[17] 265 U. S. 388.[18] 266 U. S. 507.[19] 268 U. S. 228.[20] Most of the earlier cases are collected in 158 A.L.R. 1126. As there appears, some circuits with a fine impartiality d......