UNITED STATES
v.
THE COMMISSIONER

U.S. | 1866-12-01
Mr. Justice MILLER, did not sit in the case.
5 Wall. 563 Supreme Court of the United States (1866) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 18 L. Ed. 692 · 1866 U.S. LEXIS 961 · SCDB 1866-118
Cited by 16 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

The Supreme Court affirmed that a writ of mandamus was not an appropriate remedy to compel a Land Office commissioner to issue a patent for land, holding that the commissioner's duties involved judicial discretion and judgment rather than ministerial acts, and that the relator's proper remedy was an equitable bill if he claimed superior title to the land. The Court noted that mandamus could not be applied where resolution required factual determinations beyond the officer's knowledge and the consideration of parol evidence inconsistent with mandamus proceedings.


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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice NELSON

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court. Where the merit of the several objections and questions made in this case lie, we do not undertake to determine, nor can they be determined, understaudingly, upon this record. Many of the acts of the parties, and of the officers,, the registers, and commissioners of the Land Office, may be' valid or void, depending upon the facts and circumstances attending them at the time, and which rest in parol, and are the proper subject of proofs. We have referred to them for the purpose of showing that this case is not one to which the remedy by mandamus can be applied. It calls for the exercise of the judicial functions of the officer, and these of no ordinary character. Indeed, however eminent, it is plain no intelligible decision could be made without the aid of facts not within his knowledge, nor attainable by proofs consistent with the proceedings in the case of mandamus. The duty is not merely ministerial, but involves judgment and discretion, which cannot be controlled by this writ. Besides, it appears that Kenzie was iir possession when his entry was made in May, 1831, and was there in 1836; and, as the premises are situated in the settled part of the city of Chicago, it is but reasonable to presume that persons are at this time in possession of the same premises under his title who should have an opportunity to defend it. The relator has mistaken his remedy, for if his title under the certificate is valid, and presents a superior equity over the opposing title, as in the case of Lyttle et al. v. The State of Arkansas, * and Lindsey v. Hawes,† the appropriate remedy is^ by bill in equity. Whether or not a mandamus will lie in any case to compel the issuing of a patent is a question not necessarily involved in this case; wTe have not therefore examined it, and express no opinion upon it. We have found no case in which this power has been exercised. Patents are to be signed by the President in person, or in his name by a secretary, under his direction,* and countersigned by the recorder of the General Land Office.† Judgment of the court below Affirmed.

Mr. Justice MILLER, did not sit in the case. * 9 Howard, 315. † 2 Black, 554. * 4 Stat. at Large, 663. † 5 Id. 417.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Carey, 121 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1935)
  • Noble v. Union River Logging R.R. Co., 147 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1893)
    …. Stokes, 3 How. 87; Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 92; Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272; Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522; United States v. Seaman, 17 How. 224, 231; United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284; United States v. The Commissioner, 5 Wall. 563; Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347; The Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. 298; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378; Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50; United States v. Black, 128 U. S. 40. In all these cases the distinction between judicial and mini…

Previewing 3 of 9 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