FARRAR AND BROWN
v.
THE 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.
The Supreme Court held that the attorney general's appearance on behalf of the United States at the first term of a writ of error, by entering his name on the docket according to established practice, constitutes a valid appearance that cures any defects in the service of process, and therefore the attorney general cannot subsequently challenge the writ's validity on technical grounds. The Court reinstated the cause and overruled the motion to dismiss, establishing that an appearance operates to waive procedural irregularities in service.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court as follows:
The practice has úriifOrmly been, ever since. the seat of government was removed, to Washipgton, for the clerk to enter, at the first term to which any writ of error or appeal is returnable, the appearance of the attorney general in every case to which the United States are a party, by entering his name on the docket- . This practice must have been known to every attorney general, and Ijas never been objected to It might be considered, therefore, as having an implied acquiescence on the part of the attorney general; although it is admitted that there is no evidence of any express assent. We do not say that this practice would be conclusive against the attorney general, if he should at the first term withdraw such appearance, or move to strike it out, in order to take advantage of any irregularity in the service of process. But if he lets it pass for that term,, without objection j we think it is conclusive upon him as to an appearance.
The decisions of this court have uniformly been that an appearance cures any defect in the service of process; and there is nothing to distinguish this .case from the general doctrine. The cause therefore is ordered to be reinstated.
On consideration, of the motion made by the attorney general on the part of the defendants in error in this cause, to dismiss the writ of error in this cause, on the ground that the citation is made returnable to a day during the vacation, to wit, on the first Monday.in January, A.D. 1828, whereas the return day should have been the second Monday in January, A.D. 1828,. it is ordered by the court, that inasmuch as the said defect is cured by the appearance of the attorney general on the part of the. defendant, said motion be, and the same is hereby overruled.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baer v. Sec. Tr. Co., 33 F.2d 861 (4th Cir. 1929)…ed the case upon the merits. See 3 C. J. 1250; Dillingham v. Skein, Fed. Cas. No. 3912a; Shute v. Keyser, 149 U. S. 649, 13 S. Ct. 960, 37 L. Ed. 884; Chicago & P. Railroad Co. v. Blair, 100 U. S. 661, 25 L. Ed. 587; Farrar & Brown v. United States, 3 Pet. 459, 7 L. Ed. 741. But, in addition to this, we think that the motion is utterly lacking in merit. We havé examined the original papers in the cause, and there is no ground for the statement, “that no application for an appeal or the [*862] allowance o…
-
Thomas B. Bishop Co. v. Santa Barbara Cnty., 96 F.2d 198 (9th Cir. 1938)…esent Secretary of the Interior could not, as he did, voluntarily become a party to the suit with the consent of all parties. This he might do, we think, independent of the statute providing for substitution. Compare Farrar & Brown v. United States, 3 Pet. 459, 7 L.Ed. 741. It seems sufficient to hold that the Secretary of the Interior is properly a party to the action by his own choice. The judgment is reversed.…
-
In re Gant (M.D.N.C. 1931)…nd, if the service were quashed and subpoena issued to the bankrupt’s heirs, no useful purpose could be served by the delay. 1 Rem. 102; Shute v. Patterson (C. C. A.) 147 F. 509; In re Stein (C. C. A.) 105 F. 749; New Jersey v. New York, 3 Pet. 461, 7 L. Ed. 741; Meek v. Banking Co., 268 U. S. 426, 45 S. Ct. 560, 69 L. Ed. 1028.…