MATHEUS, U. S. MARSHAL,

v.

UNITED STATES EX REL. CUNNINGHAM

Citator

Cited By

• Snyder v. Buck, 340 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1950)
  …tion within the statutory period, the judgment below was vacated and the cause was remanded with directions “to dismiss the cause as abated.”5 United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 276 U. S. 590, 591; Matheus v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 282 U. S. 802. This was a declared policy of Congress not to be altered by an agreement of the parties6 or by some theory of estoppel. Nor did the application of § 11 turn on whether the judgment rendered prior to the death or resignation of the official was for…
• Fetters v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 283 U.S. 638 (U.S. 1931)
  …court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted, but with an order vacating the judgments of both lower courts and remanding the cause to the district court with directions to dismiss the proceeding as abated. Matheus v. U. S. ex rel. Cunningham, 282 U. S. 802. This was done because the United States Marshal named in the petition had gone out of office and no substitution had been made within the statutory [*641] period. Respondent then surrendered himself to United States Marshal Fetters, who was then in…
• Acheson v. Fujiko Furusho, 212 F.2d 284 (9th Cir. 1954)
  …n of the questions involved.” The case of U. S. ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 1928, 276 U.S. 590, 48 S.Ct. 206, 72 L.Ed. 720, relied upon very heavily in the instant cases as requiring abatement in them, and Mathues v. U. S. ex rel. Cunningham, 1930, 282 U.S. 802, 51 S.Ct. 84, 75 L.Ed. 721 (habeas corpus proceedings), and Davis v. Preston, 1930, 280 U.S. 406, 50 S.Ct. 171, 74 L.Ed. 514, followed the statute and the cases were dismissed because the officer-defendant had left office and the successor had quali…