TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States ex rel. Petach v. Phelps

UNITED STATES Ex Rel. PETACH v. PHELPS, Immigration Officer; UNITED STATES Ex Rel. DIZAZZO v. SAME

United States ex rel. Petach v. Phelps, 40 F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 7, 1930
Docket
Nos. 279, 280
Judges
Hand, Chase
Citations
40 F.2d 5001930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3215

Opinion — Chase

CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

We take judicial notice of the fact that at the times when these arrest and deportation warrants were signed both Smelser and Snyder were Assistants to the Secretary of Labor, duly appointed and qualified under the Act of Congress of March 4, 1927 (5 USCA § 613a). Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138 , 10 S. Ct. 290 , 33 L. Ed. 531 ; MacKusick v. Johnson (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 398 . These assistants were by the above statute empowered to “perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Labor or required by law.” Thex-e is no express statutory requirement making it their duty to sign such warrants, and there is nothing in the record to indicate whether the Secretary of Labor has, or has not, prescribed such duties as something to> be performed by them. They were, however, public officers, who assumed to act with authority to sign these warrants. Under the statute, the power to so act could have been conferred upon them by the Secretary of Labor. Lew Shee v. Nagle (C. C. A.) 22 F.(2d) 107 . In the absence of any allegation and showing to the contrary, we will take it for granted that he did so before they acted, Knox County v. Ninth National Bank, 147 U. S. 91, 97 , 13 S. Ct. 267 , 37 L. Ed. 93 ; United States v. Royer, 268 U. S. 394, 398 , 45 S. Ct. 519 , 69 L. Ed. 1011 , and apply the familiar rule that public officials will be presumed to have the power to do the official acts they perform until he who relies on the contrary has alleged and proved it. Nofire v. United States, 164 U. S. 657, 660, 661 , 17 S. Ct. 212 , 41 L. Ed. 588 .

The judgment in eaeh ease is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11934: 21938: 21946: 11950: 119332026peak 1934 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Elting97 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1938)
  2. Anderson v. P. W. Madsen Inv. Co.72 F.2d 768 (10th Cir. 1934)
  3. United States ex rel. Saclarides v. Shaughnessy180 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1950)
  4. Ponzi v. Ward7 F. Supp. 736 (D. Mass. 1934)
  5. United States v. Presser99 F.2d 819 (2d Cir. 1938)
  6. Anderson v. Rohrer3 F. Supp. 367 (S.D. Fla. 1933)

Most recent

  1. United States ex rel. Saclarides v. Shaughnessy180 F.2d 687 (2d Cir. 1950)
  2. United States ex rel. Karpathiou v. Jordan153 F.2d 810 (7th Cir. 1946)
  3. United States v. Presser99 F.2d 819 (2d Cir. 1938)
  4. Cunard S. S. Co. v. Elting97 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1938)
  5. Anderson v. P. W. Madsen Inv. Co.72 F.2d 768 (10th Cir. 1934)
  6. Ponzi v. Ward7 F. Supp. 736 (D. Mass. 1934)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U.S. 138 (1890) 123
Knox Cnty. v. Ninth Nat'l Bank, 147 U.S. 91 (1893) 66
Nofire v. United States, 164 U.S. 657 (1897) 54
United States v. Royer, 268 U.S. 394 (1925) 53
MacKusick ex rel. Pattavina v. Johnson, 3 F.2d 398 (1st Cir. 1924) 9
Lew Shee v. Nagle, 22 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1927) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list