Tom C. Clark

“ But the point made in the Davis case was simply that the succession in office had preceded Davis' effort to obtain review by this Court and pertinent statutes did not enable the former federal officer to invoke review of a judgment which was of no legal concern to him. And in this case since an appeal was not properly taken within the time allowed, it does not matter at this time whether the District Court judgment could be enforced by plaintiff against Buck's successor, by substitution of the latter as defendant or by other action. ”

“ Buck
Argued: Oct. 18, 1950. --- Decided: Nov 13, 1950
Mr. Justice CLARK, with whom Mr. Justice BLACK concurs, dissenting.
Since the duty sought to be enforced in this action attached to the office of Paymaster General and rested upon Admiral Buck only so long as he held the office, it is clear that petitioner's claim is against Buck in his representative capacity, not personally. After his retirement it was not within his power to comply with the District Court's injunction, and the judgment ceased to be enforceable against him. ”

“ Consequently Buck lacked standing to obtain review of the judgment on appeal. [2] Thus far I agree with the conclusions of the Court.
But I think that when the attorney for the Government called to the Court of Appeals' attention-after this suit had been pending there for more than a year-that the appeal had been taken by buck after his retirement and that no appeal had been perfected by or on behalf of his successor, the court should have dismissed the appeal on its own motion. [3] That is the action which this Court took in Davis v. ”