LECRONE, RECEIVER OF THE ORINOCO COMPANY, LIMITED,
v.
MCADOO, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
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.
The Orinoco Company's receiver sought mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to pay certificates issued by the Secretary of State for damage claims against Venezuela that the United States had released and received settlement funds for under an 1896 statute. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the defendant Secretary had resigned and his successor was not substituted within the twelve-month period required by law for such substitution, rendering the mandamus action moot and precluding consideration of the underlying merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a petition to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for mandamus to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to pay the amount of two certificates issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of State. The petitioner is receiver of the Orinoco Company, Limited. That Company-had claims for-damages against the United States of Venezuela, which, with others, by agreement between the two governments, the United States of America released upon receiving from the United States of Venezuela a certain sum in trust for the parties having the claims. By the Act of February 27, 1896, c. 34, 29 Stat. 32, moneys so received are to be paid into the Treasury and the Secretary of State is to “determine the aniounts due claimants, respectively, . ... and certify the same to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall, upon the presentation of the certificates of the Secretary of State, pay the amounts so found to be due.” Each of such trust funds is declared to be “appropriated for the payment, to the ascertained beneficiaries thereof of the certificates” provided for. The answer alleged that there were, pending in the same Supreme Court two bills in equity, one by a private person and one by the Orinoco Company, Limited, asserting claims to the fund, that the respondent and petitioner both are partiés to those proceedings, the petitioner having submitted to the jurisdiction, and that the petitioner should be limited to those proceedings and await the result of the decrees. The petitioner demurred. The demurrer was overruled and the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court and its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The theory of the answer seems to be that the purpose of the act of Congress was to appropriate a fund to the claim -and to transfer the claim to that fund, leaving the question of title open to litigation in the ordinary courts, as has been held in more or less similar cases. Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 303, 309, 310. S. C. 147 Massachusetts, 8, 12. United States v. Dalcour, 203 U. S. 408,422. Robertson v. Gordon, 226 U. S. 311, 317. See also Bayard v. White, 127 U. S. 246. It is thought that Congress hardly can have sought to confer judicial powers upon the Secretary of State. United States v. Borcherling, 185 U. S. 223, 234. And as the certificates are not gifts but 'are in recognition of outstanding claims, Williams v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529, reversing s. c. 146 Massachusetts, 545, judicial action is supposed to be necessary for the final determination of the right. But we canhot consider .that question or the other arguments upon the merits of the' case, because, Mr. McAdoo having resigned the office of Secretary of the Treasury, his successor was not substituted within twelve months; which is the limit for such substitution fixed by the Act of February 8, 1899, c. 121, 30 Stat. 822. It is said that the Code of the District of Columbia, §1278, allows the petitioner to recover damages in the same proceeding and that the petition should be retained to charge Mr. McAdoo personally. But apart from other questions the damages are only incident to the allowance of the writ of mandamus, and as that cannot be allowed the whole proceeding is at an end. See Pullman Co. v. Knott, 243 U. S. 447, 451; Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U. S. 571, 577.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Snyder v. Buck, 340 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1950)…r against a federal officer in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge of his official duties should abate [*19] because of his death or resignation; and it provided a period in which substitution could be made.4 See LeCrone v. McAdoo, 253 U. S. 217; H. R. Rep. No. 960, 55th Cong., 2d Sess. The rule was again changed by § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1925. The provision that no action should abate was eliminated. It was provided that the action might be continued against the successor on the req…
-
Def. Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 336 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1949)…guage a proviso. And since the District Court entered its judgment during the year allowed for substitution of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, we conclude that it was valid when entered. The Court of Appeals thought that LeCrone v. Mc-Adoo, 253 U. S. 217; Payne v. Industrial Board, 258 U. S. 613; and United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 276 U. S. 590, dictated a contrary result. They do not. They rather demonstrate the validity of our interpretation. The statutory language construed in the LeCr…
-
Acheson v. Fujiko Furusho, 212 F.2d 284 (9th Cir. 1954)…Co. v. Baker, 1905, 196 U.S. 432, 25 S.Ct. 375, 49 L.Ed. 540, a mandamus proceeding against a United States District Judge. The judge resigned. His successor consented to be substituted, and the case proceeded to judgment. Le Crone v. McAdoo, 1920, 253 U.S. 217, 40 S.Ct. 510, 64 L.Ed. 869, was in mandamus against Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo, who resigned his office while the action was pending. A judgment had been entered in a trial court to the effect that money should issue from the United States Tr…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1891)
- Bayard v. United States ex rel. White, 127 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1888)
- Butler v. Goreley, 146 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1892)
- The Pullman Co. v. Croom, 231 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1913)
- United States v. Borcherling, 185 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1902)
- United States v. Dalcour, 203 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1906)
- Robertson v. Gordon, 226 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1912)
- The Pullman Co. v. Knott, 243 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1917)