WALLACE
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Wallace challenged his military dismissal and sought back pay, arguing the Senate could not have properly confirmed his successor's appointment without knowledge of the grounds for Wallace's removal. The Supreme Court held that the Senate's executive function in confirming nominations does not require investigation into the cause of vacancies, and the Senate's confirmation is legally effective regardless of whether it knew the specific reasons for a predecessor's dismissal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the court.
- Counsel for the appellant object to the presumption we indulge in our opinion.in this case that.the Senate must have .known of the dismissal of Wallace when it confirmed the' nomination of Lieutenant Colonel Robert Smith,. whose appointment and confirmation filled the place considered vacant by Wallace’s dismissal. They insist that the absence of knowledge by the Senate of Wallace’s removal was conceded by the Government in both the Court of Claims and here. What the Government brief in this court said was that it did not appear that the Senate was advised. But appellant’s counsel produce evidence from the record in the Court of Claims upon which they ask that the case be remanded to the Court of Claims to make a finding on this point. ' Let us concede for the sake of the argument, without deciding, that it is properly a matter of evidence de hors the record, and of a finding thereon. The chief item of evidence on which the motion is based is a statement in the record below that
“ On or be'fore February 21, 1918, it was the practice of the Adjutant General’s office to nominate an officer vice the particular officer whose promotion or separation from the.,service caused the vacancy; and that, after February 21, 19Í8, the practice of indicating the specific vacancy was discontinued on the recommendation of the Executive Clerk of the Senate.”
The contention of the defendant on this showing is that the Senate adopted the practice of confirming appointments to vacancies made, by the President withoút investigation into the cause of the vacancies because of the exigencies of war and the great number of appointments. We do not see that if such facts were found, it would alter our necessary conclusion. The Senate in confirming nominations is not exercising a judicial but an executive function. It does not have to give a hearing or make an investigation before lawful action, and if it chooses to accept the President’s nomination as assurance that there is a-vacancy to which the appointment proposed can be made, and acts on that assurance, the legal effect of the confirmation is not affected.
Petition for rehearing and the motion to remand are denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
Mitchum v. State, 237 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…e state courts involving a denial of federal rights, but has confined them to a direct review by this court, and deferred this until final judgment or decree in the state court of last resort.’ Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 1922, 258 U.S. 358, 361, 42 S.Ct. 318, 319, 66 L.Ed. 658. ** “ ‘Under the legislation of Congress, no court of the United States other than this court could entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify the judgment for errors of that character. Judicial Code, § 237, as amended by Act S…
-
T. Smith & SON, Inc. v. Williams, 275 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1960)…ggs & Keith v. Wolcott, 1807, 4 Cranch. 179, 8 U.S. 179, 2 L.Ed. 587; Orton v. Smith, 1856, 18 How. 263, 59 U.S. 263, 15 L.Ed. 393. . Watson v. Jones, 1872, 13 Wall. 679, 80 U.S. 679, 20 L.Ed. 666; Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 1922, 258 U.S. 358, 42 S.Ct. 318, 63 L.Ed. 658; Hull v. Burr, 1914, 234 U.S. 712, 34 S.Ct. 892, 58 L.Ed. 1557; Lawrence v. Morgan’s Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co., 1887, 121 U.S. 634, 7 S.Ct. 1013, 30 L.Ed. 1018; Haines v. Carpenter, 1876, 91 U.S. 254, 23 L.Ed. 345. . In Toucey Mr.…
-
Fetzer v. Johnson, 15 F.2d 145 (8th Cir. 1926)…of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1242); for, as held in Simon v. Railway Co.,.236 U. S. 115, 35 S. Ct. 255, 59 L. Ed. 492, Public Service Co. v. Corboy, 250 U. S. 153, 39 S. Ct. 440, 63 L. Ed. 905, and Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 258 U. S. 358, 42 S. Ct. 318, 66 L. Ed. 658, the prohibition of that section does not apply “when the litigation has ended and a final judgment has been obtained — and when the plaintiff endeavors to use such judgment — a new state of facts, not within the language of the statu…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. United States, 257 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1922)