United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels

Supreme Court

United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels

231 U.S. 218, 34 S. Ct. 84, 58 L. Ed. 191, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2560

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 1, 1913

Docket79

StatusPublished

Cited by80 cases

This text of 231 U.S. 218 (United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels) 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

United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218, 34 S. Ct. 84, 58 L. Ed. 191, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2560 (1913).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *222 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.

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

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 *222 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 U.S. 218, 34 S. Ct. 84, 58 L. Ed. 191, 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-goldberg-v-daniels-scotus-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack