UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. TURNER
v.
FISHER, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. | 1911-12-04
No. 60
222 U.S. 204 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Caution
Also reported at: 56 L. Ed. 165 · 32 S. Ct. 37 · SCDB 1911-011 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1775
Cited by 25 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Creek Freedmen whose names were enrolled on federal rolls after a hearing acquired due process rights that could not be taken away without proper notice and opportunity to be heard, but the Court affirmed the denial of mandamus relief where the Secretary raised a defense alleging the enrollment had been procured by fraud and the freedmen failed to properly respond to that defense. The decision established that while arbitrary removal of names without adequate notice violates due process, mandamus will not issue to restore rights when the relator has not come to court with clean hands or when the underlying enrollment itself may have been fraudulent.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
By Mr. Justice Lamar.

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court.

By Mr. Justice Lamar. 1. Where, under the provisions of acts of Congress, and after a hearing, the names of relators were duly entered as Creek Freedmen by blood on the rolls made and ap-' proved by the Secretary of the interior, rights were acquired of which the freedmen could not be deprived without that character of notice arid opportunity to be heard essential to due process of law. Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249.

2. Notice to the attorney'"of such freedmen, given a few hours before the hearing of a motion" to strike their names, on the ground that their enrollment had been secured by perjury, was not such notice as afforded due process. Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 399, 409; Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U. S. 701, 708; Iowa Central Railway Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S. 389, 393; Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 414.

3. In the absence of other controlling facts, the Secretary of the Inferior could have been required by mandamus to restore the names of those thus arbitrarily stricken off without notice. Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249.

4. But mandamus is not a writ of right; It issues to remedy a wrong, not to 'promote one, and will not be granted in aid of those who do not come into court with clean hands.

5. Although the petition for the writ alleged that relators were freedmen duly enrolled and denied the truth of the testimony, on which their names were stricken off, yet where the answer of the Secretary referred’to that testimony and alleged, “on information and belief, that the relators were not freedmen members or members by blood or marriage of the Creek Nation, and that their en.rollment had been procured by fraud,” a defense Was stated, proof of which would have defeated the right to a restoration of relators’ names, even though they had been improperly stricken from the rolls without due process. United States ex rel. Redfield v. Windom, 137 U. S. 636, 646; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 257.

'6.. Where a general demurrer to an answer containing such defense was overruled, and the relators, instead of replying, elected to stand on their demurrer, the writ of mandamus was properly refused. In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 257.

7. To have issued the writ would have involved the useless thing of requiring relators’ names to be reentered, and in other proceedings having their names stricken because the original enrollment had been procured-by fraud, thus admitted by the demurrer. Affirmed

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGRATH, 341 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1951)
    …S. 337. And although an individual’s interest has been created by an ex parte decision, it may not be destroyed “without that character of notice and opportunity to be heard essential to due process of law.” United States ex rel. Turner v. Fisher, 222 U. S. 204, 208; Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U. S. 249. See also Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; see Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 49; cf. United States ex rel. Knauff…
  • Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1917)
    …he it with the legal title as against the United States, which now holds both the legal title and the equity to have set aside an allotment certificate secured by fraud. A writ of mandamus will not be granted for such* purpose. See Turner v. Fisher, 222 U. S. 204. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. See, e. g., Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445; Woodward v. de Graffenried, 238 U. S. 284. People ex rel. Wood v. Assessors, 137 N. Y. 201; People ex rel. Durant Land Co. v. Jeroloman, 13…
  • United States ex rel. Greathouse v. Dern, 289 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1933)
    …or together. Although the remedy by mandamus is at law, its allowance is controlled by equitable principles, see Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U.S. 308, 311; Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367, 371; Redfield v. Windom, supra, 644; cf. Turner v. Fisher, 222 U.S. 204; Ex parte Skinner & Eddy Corp., 265 U.S. 86, 95; People ex rel. Wood v. Assessors, 137 N.Y. 201; 33 N.E. 145; Matter of Lindgren, 232 N.Y. 59; 133 N.E. 353; McCarthy v. Street Comm’rs, 188 Mass. 338; 74 N.E. 659; People ex rel. Stettauer v. Olsen, 2…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw