Dangerfield v. Secretary of State

Dangerfield v. Secretary of State
Dangerfield v. Secretary of State
Court	Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas
Full case name	Dangerfield v. Secretary of State
Decided	1840
Citation(s)	Dallam 358 (1840); 1840 Tex. LEXIS 3
Holding
	That the President does not have the authority to appoint the county court chief justice, the Congress established the process to fill the office by Congressional election
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Thomas Jefferson Rusk, Anthony B. Shelby, William J. Jones, John T. Mills, and John Hemphill
Case opinions
Majority	Mills
Laws applied
	Tex. Const. art. IV § 1, art. VI § 5

Last updated April 23, 2019

Dangerfield v. Secretary of State, Dallam 592 (1844), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas which held that the President does not have the authority to appoint the county court chief justice, the Texas Congress established the process to fill the office by Congressional election. The Court issued a writ of mandamus to settle the dispute.

Case citation a system for uniquely identifying individual rulings of a court

Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions, either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas was the court of last resort for legal matters in the Republic of Texas from the Republic's independence from Mexico in 1836 until its annexation by the United States of America in 1846. The current Supreme Court of Texas was established that year.

The Republic of Texas was a sovereign state in North America that existed from March 2, 1836, to February 19, 1846. It was bordered by Mexico to the west and southwest, the Gulf of Mexico to the southeast, the two U.S. states of Louisiana and Arkansas to the east and northeast, and United States territories encompassing parts of the current U.S. states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico to the north and west. The citizens of the republic were known as Texians.

Background

The dispute centered on whether the President of the Republic had the right to appoint the chief justice of the county courts, or whether the Texas Congress had the right to elect the justices.^[1] While the Texas Constitution mentioned that there was to be a court in every county, it did not mention county court judges.^[2] That office was created by statute.^[3]

Decision

Judge John T. Mills wrote the opinion of the court.^[4] He first noted that the courts of the republic did not have the authority to summon the President, and to hold him in contempt if he did not answer.^[5] In examining the constitutional question, Mills said that the President had the authority to appoint officers of the Republic who were named by the constitution, but for which a method of selection had not been provided.^[6] He then noted that the county court chief justice was not such an officer, that they were an officer of an inferior court, created by Congress and which Congress had provided a selection method for by election by both houses of Congress.^[7]

John T. Mills was an American lawyer who served as a Supreme Court Justice for the Republic of Texas.

Subsequent developments

This is the first recorded case of mandamus being used in Texas. It is also the only case during the Republic where the Court exercised original jurisdiction instead of appellate jurisdiction.^[8]

The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision. Original jurisdiction refers to the right of the Supreme court to hear a case for the first time. It has the exclusive right to hear all cases that deal with disputes between states, or between states and the union government. It also has original jurisdiction over cases brought to the court by ordinary people regarding issues to the importance of society at large.

Appellate jurisdiction is the power of an appellate court to review, amend and overrule decisions of a trial court or other lower tribunal. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing ; a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings made by the lower court.

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution. Decided in 1803, Marbury remains the single most important decision in American constitutional law. The Court's landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual "law", not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

The Federal Government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and several island possessions. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

Philip Pendleton Barbour was the 10th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only individual to serve in both positions.

Chapter 9: Judiciary.Chapter 9 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji is titled Judiciary. It is divided into twenty-two sections, setting out the composition and functions of the Judicial branch of the Fijian government.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was a United States federal statute adopted on September 24, 1789, in the first session of the First United States Congress. It established the federal judiciary of the United States. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts" as Congress saw fit to establish. It made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide.

The Midnight Judges Act represented an effort to solve an issue in the U.S. Supreme Court during the early 19th century. There was concern, beginning in 1789, about the system that required the Justices of the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" and reiterate decisions made in the appellate level courts. The Supreme Court Justices had often voiced concern and suggested that the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts be divided. President Thomas Jefferson did not want the judiciary to gain more power over the executive branch.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines or referred to as simply by its colloquial term Korte Suprema, is the highest court in the Philippines. The Court was established by the second Philippine Commission in June 11, 1901 through the enactment of Act No. 136, an Act which had abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila.

The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It is the direct successor to the United States Court of Claims, which was founded in 1855, and is therefore a revised version of one of the oldest federal courts in the country.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma is one of the two highest judicial bodies in the U.S. state of Oklahoma and leads the judiciary of Oklahoma, the judicial branch of the government of Oklahoma.

The supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts in many legal jurisdictions. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.

The judiciary of Pakistan is a hierarchical system with two classes of courts: the superior judiciary and the subordinate judiciary. The superior judiciary is composed of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Federal Shariat Court and five High Courts, with the Supreme Court at the apex. There is a High Court for each of the four provinces as well as a High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Constitution of Pakistan entrusts the superior judiciary with the obligation to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Neither the Supreme Court nor a High Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to Tribal Areas, except otherwise provided for. The disputed regions of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit–Baltistan have separate court systems.

The Supreme Constitutional Court is the highest jurisdictional authority in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Supreme Court was established under the 1971 Constitution to adjudicate electoral disputes, rule on the constitutionality of a law or decree challenged by the prime minister or People's Council, and to render opinions on the constitutionality of bills, decrees, and regulations when requested to do so by the prime minister. The High Constitutional Court is forbidden, however, to question the validity of the popularly approved "laws submitted by the President of the Republic to popular referendums." The court consists of the president and four judges he appoints to serve a renewable term of four years.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius is the highest court of Mauritius and is the final court of appeal in the Mauritian judicial system. It was established in its current form in 1850, replacing the Cour d'Appel established in 1808 during the French administration and has a permanent seat in Port Louis. There is a right of appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius directly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

The Judiciary of Kenya is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in Kenya. After the promulgation of the constitution of Kenya 2010 the general public through parliament sought to reform the judiciary. Parliament passed the Magistrates and Judges vetting act of 2011. A major part of reforming the judiciary was the vetting of Magistrates and Judges in an attempt to weed out unsuitable ones. The Judicature Act has also been amended to raise the minimum number of magistrate and Judges allowing more judicial officers to be hired. More magistrates and judges are needed to clear the backlog of cases that have caused great delay in the conclusion of cases and to staff new courts. New courts are needed to bring the courts closer to the people which is in line with devolution a major principle written into the Constitution of 2010. New courts like the High Court opened in Garissa in November 2014 is a good example. In the past residents of North Eastern Kenya had to go all the way to Embu to access a High Court.

The Judiciary of Virginia is defined under the Constitution and law of Virginia and is composed of the Supreme Court of Virginia and subordinate courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Courts, and the General District Courts. Its administration is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, the Committee on District Courts, the Judicial Conferences, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, and various other offices and officers.

The Judiciary of Sierra Leone is the branch of the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone which interprets and applies the laws of Sierra Leone to ensure impartial justice under law and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the constitution.

The Supreme Court of the Gambia is a superior court of record and the highest court in The Gambia. Established in 1851, it has appellate and original jurisdiction over any law exceeding the powers conferred by the Constitution or any law upon the National Assembly or any other person or authority.

References

↑ Dangerfield v. Secretary of State, Dallam 358 (1840); David P. Currie, Article: The Constitution of the Republic of Texas: Part 2 OF 2: The Decisions, 8 Green Bag 2d 239 (2005).
↑ Currie, at 240.
↑ Currie, at 240-41.
↑ James W. Paulsen, Sesquicentennial Special Issue: The Missing Cases of the Republic of Texas Supreme Court Term, 1845: The Judges of the Supreme Court of the Republic Of Texas, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 305, 344 (1986).
↑ Dangerfield, at 358.
↑ Dangerfield, at 358.
↑ Dangerfield, at 358-59; Currie, at 240-41.
↑ Richard E. Flint, The Evolving Standard for Granting Mandamus Relief in the Texas Supreme Court: One More "Mile Marker Down the Road of No Return", 39 St. Mary's L.J. 3 (2007).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Dangerfield v. Secretary of State, Dallam 358 (1840); David P. Currie, Article: The Constitution of the Republic of Texas: Part 2 OF 2: The Decisions, 8 Green Bag 2d 239 (2005).

[2] Currie, at 240.

[3] Currie, at 240-41.

[4] James W. Paulsen, Sesquicentennial Special Issue: The Missing Cases of the Republic of Texas Supreme Court Term, 1845: The Judges of the Supreme Court of the Republic Of Texas, 65 Tex. L. Rev. 305, 344 (1986).

[5] Dangerfield, at 358.

[6] Dangerfield, at 358.

[7] Dangerfield, at 358-59; Currie, at 240-41.

[8] Richard E. Flint, The Evolving Standard for Granting Mandamus Relief in the Texas Supreme Court: One More "Mile Marker Down the Road of No Return", 39 St. Mary's L.J. 3 (2007).