Handlin v. Wickliffe

Supreme Court

Handlin v. Wickliffe

79 U.S. 173, 20 L. Ed. 365, 12 Wall. 173, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1177

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 30, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 79 U.S. 173 (Handlin v. Wickliffe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Handlin v. Wickliffe, 79 U.S. 173, 20 L. Ed. 365, 12 Wall. 173, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1177 (1871).

Pincite

Opinion

■ 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 *175 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

■ 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 *175 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 U.S. 173, 20 L. Ed. 365, 12 Wall. 173, 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/handlin-v-wickliffe-scotus-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack