HANDLIN
v.
WICKLIFFE
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.
During Reconstruction in Louisiana, a military-appointed judge challenged his removal by the military governor, arguing the appointment was permanent. The Supreme Court held that military appointments made during military occupation were inherently revocable at the military governor's discretion, and that either the continuation of military rule or the establishment of civil government under a new constitution would terminate the appointee's authority. The Court affirmed the removal, establishing that military appointments during occupation do not create permanent tenure.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
' It is. too clear for argument that the appointment of the relator as judge was purely military, authorized only by the necessities of military occupation, and was subject to revocation whenever, in the judgment of the military governor, revocation should become necessary or expedient. The adoption of the constitution during the war, under military orders, and the election of Hahn as governor, did not affect the military occupation, in the judgment of .the national authorities, for Hahn was appointed military governor by the President. If the situation was not changed, Hahn, as military governor, had the same right as his predecessor to revoke the appointment of judge. If it was changed and the civil constitution of the State was in full operation, independent of military control, the authority derived from the appointment by the military governor designated by the President ceased of. necessity. The office became vacant, and Halm had whatever authority the State constitution conferred to enforce the vacancy by removal, and to fill it by a new appointment. We are unable to approve the reasons assigned for removal, but we cannot doubt the power. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana is there-' fore
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The " Stephen Morgan.", 94 U.S. 599 (U.S. 1876)…rors undoubtedly. occurred in the libel, but the respondents corrected the same in their answer; and, inasmuch as the hearing upon the merits was full in each of the courts below, the court here is not inclined to sustain that defence. The Syracuse, 12 Wall. 173. Much discussion of the second defence is unnecessary, as both the proofs and the allegations of the answer show that the schooner violated the sailing rules enacted by Congress. Steamships, under the circumstances described, are required to keep o…