KETCHUM
v.
BUCKLEY
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 following the Civil War, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of state laws and official appointments made prior to and during the conflict, ruling that the appointment of a military governor did not automatically divest state officials of their lawful duties or alter the general laws governing estate administration. The Court affirmed that states retained the authority to administer justice and protect private rights through their existing legal framework so long as such acts did not impair federal supremacy or citizens' constitutional rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the •court.
We are not willing to hear an argument on the only possible Federal question presented by this case. It is. now settled law in this court that during the late civil war “ the same general form of government, the same general law for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the States did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of the citizens, under the Constitution, they are in general to be treated as valid and binding.” Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176 ; Horn v. Lockhart et al., 17 Wall. 570; Sprott v. United States, 20 id. 459; Texas v. White, 7 id.
700. The-appointment by the President of a military governor for the State at the close of hostilities did not .of itself change the general laws then in forcp for the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, and did not remove from office those who were at the time charged by jaw with public duties in that behalf. It is not alleged that the governor after his appointment undertook by any positive act to remove McGuire from the position he occupied as general administrator, or that McGuire himself at any time ceased to perform the duties of his office by reason of what was done by the President or others towards the restoration of the State to its political rights under the Constitution of the United States. From all that appears in the record, he continued-to act during the whole of his term as general administrator of the county, notwithstanding the changes that were going on .in the other departments of the State government. Under these circumstances, it is so clear that the judgment of the court below was right, that we grant the motion to affirm. '
Judgment affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Temistocles Ramirez de Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger, 745 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1984)…anywhere. . 11 C. Wright & A. Miu.r.R, Fkdiíkai. Practici- & Prociidurh §§ 2942-45 (1973). See E. Messner, The Jurisdiction of a Court of Equity Over Persons to Compel the Doing of Acts, 14 Minn.L.Rev 494, 500 (1930). . 99 U.S. (9 Otto) 298, 308, 25 L.Ed. 473 (1879) (emphasis added). . See sources cited supra note 125. . Id. . See, e.g., United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., 344 U.S. 149, 73 S.Ct. 200, 97 L.Ed. 157 (1952) (adjudicating a claim that United States military officials unlawfully de…1 / 2
-
Madsen v. Kinsella, 343 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1952)…r a treaty of peace, the country is restored to its original allegiance or becomes incorporated with the domain of the prevailing belligerent.” Winthrop, op. cit. 801. See note 18, supra. Cf. Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158, 166; Ketchum v. Buckley, 99 U. S. 188, as illustrations of the practice of recognizing the existing law of the occupied area; and Winthrop, op. cit. 800.…
-
In re Schreiber, 23 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1928)…the Revised Statutes. That provision was held to relate to suits by or against the assignee in bankruptcy with respect to. parties other than the bankrupt, and to have no application to a suit against the bankrupt. Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 473; Thomas v. Blythe (C. C. A. 4) 55 F. 961. Wé think the same construction should be given to the present act. Section lid was never meant to allow the bankrupt to appropriate property which the trustee should have taken possession of before the es…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570 (U.S. 1873)
- Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1877)