Felix Frankfurter

Name: Snyder v. Buck — Dissent
Author: Felix Frankfurter

Summary

“Snyder v. Buck — Dissent”, is a work by Felix Frankfurter. It explores elements such as the United States, suit and abatement.

Quotes from Snyder v. Buck — Dissent (Felix Frankfurter)

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ The policy of the law is to the contrary, even as to suits which could not be brought against the Government directly. So also, it has long been the policy of our law to look behind an office-holder nominally a party litigant in order to find that, for all practical purposes, it is a suit against the Government and therefore not maintainable. Justice should be equally open-eyed in order to find behind the nominal official defendant the United States as the real defendant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ By denominating Admiral Buck as 'Paymaster General of the Navy' in his notice of appeal, the United States Attorney recognized that Paymaster General Buck was, as it were, merely an alias for the United States, the real client of the United States Attorney. The Government, indeed, has consistently recognized that justice does not call for abatement of the suit. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ If astuteness has been exercised to deny the representative character of an official in order to avoid his identification as the sovereign ad hoc, it runs counter to the rational administration of justice not to find an official the sovereign ad hoc and the suit against him, in effect, a suit against the sovereign when sovereign immunity is not circumscribed thereby. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ The dominant thought of an enactment controls the primary import of isolated words. To find that the 1925 Act 'eliminated' this provision has significance only if what is meant is that certain words of the 1899 Act were 'eliminated' while the thought was retained. The full texts of the two provisions, set forth in the margin, speak for themselves. [1] What emerges is that the two enactments have essentially the same function regarding the abatement and mechanism for securing survival of an action by or against an officer of the United States. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ Section 2105 of 28 U.S.C., 28 U.S.C.A. § 2105, provides: 'There shall be no reversal in the Supreme Court or a court of appeals for error in ruling upon matters in abatement which do not involve jurisdiction.' I agree with the Court that this statute is not applicable, but not on the ground that lack of substitution is a question of 'jurisdiction.' Section 2105 relates only to the modern equivalent of a common law plea in abatement, which was made in the trial court before issue was joined on the merits of the case. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ That suits against a collector of revenue for illegal exactions under the Revenue Acts are deemed personal actions enforceable as such against the collector is an anomalous situation in our law which calls for abrogation instead of extension. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ In both, Congress assumed that a proceeding by or against an officer of the United States in relation to his official conduct would abate unless within a time certain the court authorized continuance of the proceeding by or against the successor in office. Only the phrasing of this rule differs. In the 1899 Act, Congress said that such an action shall abate unless leave is given for its continuance; in the 1925 Act, Congress said that unless leave is given for the continuance of such a suit it is at an end. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Felix Frankfurter, Snyder v. Buck — Dissent

“ The District Court refused to grant relief by mandamus, but, in accordance with modern practice, granted what it thought to be the proper remedy. The judgment, after enjoining Buck from persisting in his refusal to make payment, concluded: '* * * and the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff Thirteen Hundred and Sixty-five Dollars ($1,365.00) which is the amount equal to six months' pay at the rate received by the deceased at the time of his death.' The District Court judgment was entered on January 30, 1948. Admiral Buck was retired as Paymaster General on March 1. ”

Felix Frankfurter

Summary

Quotes from Snyder v. Buck — Dissent (Felix Frankfurter)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature