In re Parsons/Opinion of the Court
|In re Parsons by
Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
IN RE PARSONS
Argued: to surrender or deliver up the same, but, by his counsel, has in open court announced he would decline and refuse to surrender the same without being ordered so to do by the court;' wherefore he moved the court for an order requiring the said Parsons forthwith to turn over and deliver to him, as the attorney for the United States, the books, papers, and property pertaining to or belonging to that office, taking his receipt as such attorney therefor. Notice of this application was given and accepted on the same day, and thereupon Parsons demurred to the motion upon the grounds that the constitution or laws of the United States did not confer on the president the authority to remove Parsons from the office of United States district attorney, and to appoint O'Neal; that the constitution did not confer the power of appointment or removal during a recess of the senate; that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order prayed for; that 'there are no pleadings, or papers, or suit, or due process of law to authorize the order prayed for in the motion;' 'that the said court had no jurisdiction or authority to recognize the said Emmet O'Neal as stated in said motion, and that there were no pleadings, suit, or due process of law to authorize the said court to recognize the said Emmet O'Neal as United States attorney in said motion.' The demurrer was overruled, and Parsons excepted, and thereupon filed his answer to the motion, averring that he was duly appointed and commissioned by the president of the United States on the 4th of February, 1890, United States attorney for the northern district of Alabama, his commission authorizing and empowering him to perform the duties of that office for the term of four years from its date, which term was fixed by law; that shortly after he qualified and entered upon the discharge of the duties of the office, and had performed them up to the present time; that he had never resigned said office; that he now resided, and had continued to reside since the date of his commission, within the northern district of Alabama, and had given his personal attention to the duties of the office, and no cause of vacancy now existed, or had existed since his appointment; that he had faithfully performed the ---
The judgment is affirmed, for want of bill of exceptions seasonably allowed, upon the authority of Muller v. Ehlers, 91 U.S. 249; Jones v. Grover & Baker S. M. Co., 131 U.S. Append. cl; Bank v. Eldred, 143 U.S. 293, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450; Glaspell v. Railroad Co., 144 U.S. 211, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 593; Hume v. Bowie, 148 U.S. 245, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 582. Judgment affirmed.
|This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).|