UNITED STATES EX REL. GOLDBERG
v.
DANIELS, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

U.S. | 1913-12-01
No. 79
231 U.S. 218 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 58 L. Ed. 191 · 34 S. Ct. 84 · SCDB 1913-026 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2560
Cited by 175 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

A petitioner sought mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Navy to deliver the USS Cruiser Boston after the petitioner submitted the highest bid in a government sale of the condemned vessel. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the petition, holding that the United States, as owner in possession of the vessel, cannot be sued in mandamus without being made a party to the action, and therefore the suit must fail on that procedural ground.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus directing the Secretary of the Navy to deliver the United States Cruiser Boston to the'petitioner. The petition alleges that after survey, condemnation and appraisal the Cruiser was stricken from the Naval Register under the act of August 5, 1882, c. 391, § 2, 22 Stat. 284, 296; that thereafter the Secretary of the Navy advertised for proposals of purchase under the act of March 3,1883, c. 141, 22 Stat. 582, 599; that the petitioner bid more than the appraised value, sending a certified check for the whole sum bid; that when the bids were opened on the day fixed the petitioner’s was the highest, but that the Secretary refused to deliver the vessel and sent back the check, which the petitioner holds subject to the Secretary’s order. The answer admits the facts, but sets up that the bid is not an acceptance of an offer, but is itself only an offer, subject to be accepted or not at the discretion of the Secretary and that the Secretary never accepted the petitioner’s bid, the Government having decided to lend the Cruiser to the Governor of Oregon for use by the Naval Militia of that State. The petitioner demurred, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the discretion of the Secretary was not ended by the receipt and opening of the bids, even though they satisfied all the conditions prescribed. 37 App.

D. C. 282; Sub nom. United States v. Meyer. We see no sufficient reason for throwing doubt upon this premise for the decision, but there is another that comes earlier in point of logic. The United States is the owner in possession of the vessel. It cannot be interfered with behind its back and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit must fail. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S.

10. International Postal Supply Co., v. Bruce, 194 U. S. 601, 606. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 60, 69. Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 473, 476.

Judgment affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (43 total)

  • Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 74 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1917)
    …substantial evidence to sustain the issue. See Moore v. Berlin Mills Co., 74 N. H. 305, 67 Atl. Rep. 578; Meeker v. City of East Orange, 77 N. J. L. 623, 74 Atl. Rep. 379, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465; Straus v. American Publishers’ Ann’n, 231 U. S. 222, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 84, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 369; Pexley v. Clark, 35 N. Y. 520. The averments of the special plea above quoted, that the dam was built under authority granted by the United States government and that the defendant is a riparian owner- of the land, “using the…
  • Larson v. Dom. & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1949)
    …and always approvingly, cited, most recently in Land v. Dollar, supra, as an application of the Lee doctrine. See also Ickes v. [*727] Fox, 300 U. S. 82, 97. The Goltra ease is now thrown into the discard because it did not cite Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218. That earlier case is deemed in conflict with the later Goltra decision and therefore the later case, so we are told, must yield to the earlier case. One would suppose that the failure of a full-dress opinion in a later case, which was thoroughly ar…
    1 / 5
  • Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1947)
    …igation of the United States to pay money. See Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335; Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal, 326 U. S. 371. It is not an attempt to get specific performance of a contract to deliver property of the United States. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218. It is not a case where the sovereign [*738] admittedly has title to property and is sued by those who seek to compel a conveyance or to enjoin disposition of the property, the adverse claims being based on an allegedly superior equity or on rights…
    1 / 3

Previewing 3 of 43 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (12 total)

View all 12 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw