Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Land Vs. Dollar

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 07, 1947

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

60 entries 15 linked 45 unlinked
Show
  1. Tindal Vs. Wesley US Supreme Court · May 10, 1897
  2. Smith Vs. Reeves US Supreme Court · May 14, 1900
  3. Scranton Vs. Wheeler US Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1900
  4. Philadelphia Co. Vs. Stimson US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1912
  5. Goltra Vs. Weeks US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1926
  6. ickes Vs. Fox US Supreme Court · Feb 01, 1937
  7. Great Northern Life Ins. Co. Vs. Read US Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1944
  8. Minnesota Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · May 05, 1902
  9. Oregon Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1906
  10. Naganab Vs. Hitchcock US Supreme Court · May 21, 1906
  11. Louisiana Vs. Garfield US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1908
  12. Morrison Vs. Work US Supreme Court · Jan 05, 1925
  13. Gibbs Vs. Buck US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1939
  14. Allen Vs. Regents US Supreme Court · May 23, 1938
  15. Wells Vs. Roper US Supreme Court · Mar 18, 1918
  16. U.S. 731 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Land v. Dollar
    Search
  17. U.S. 731 (1947) Land v. Dollar
    Search
  18. acted in excess of their authority as public officers and are answerable personally for their actions. United States v. Lee
    Search
  19. If viewed in that posture, the case is very close to United States v. Lee
    Search
  20. or officer of the United States who acts beyond his authority is answerable for his actions. And see Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
    Search
  21. Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United
    Search
  22. general law is in issue, and the defendants claim as officers or agents of the sovereign, the rule of United States v. Lee
    Search
  23. supra, has been repeatedly approved. Cunningham v. Macon
    Search
  24. rule is applicable here, although we assume that record title to the shares is in the Commission. In United States v. Lee
    Search
  25. to restore possession of the shares which they unlawfully held. We do not trace the principle of United States v. Lee
    Search
  26. officials which would alter or terminate the contractual obligation of the United States to pay money. See Wells v. Roper
    Search
  27. Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal
    Search
  28. It is not an attempt to get specific performance of a contract to deliver property of the United States. Goldberg v. Daniels
    Search
  29. the adverse claims being based on an allegedly superior equity or on rights arising under Acts of Congress. Cunningham v. Macon
    Search
  30. U. S. 481 . And see Stanley v. Schwalby
    Search
  31. U. S. 500 , 256 U. S. 502 . If so, the suit is one against the sovereign. Mine Safety Co. v. Forrestal
    Search
  32. though, as we have said, the judgment would not be res judicata as against the United States. See United States v. Lee
    Search
  33. United States v. General
    Search
  34. and affidavits and other evidence produced on application for a preliminary injunction may not be considered. Polk Co. v. Glover
    Search
  35. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b), the court may inquire by affidavits or otherwise, into the facts as they exist. Wetmore v. Bymer
    Search
  36. McNutt v. General
    Search
  37. KVOS, Inc. v. Associated
    Search
  38. Press, 299 U. S. 269 , 299 U. S. 278 . As stated in Gibbs v. Buck
    Search
  39. of course, that the Maritime Commission is an indispensable party to this proceeding. See Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Smith
    Search
  40. only be restored to the respondents by an act of the Commission. Under such circumstances, cases like United States v. Lee
    Search
  41. title to the complainants or to quiet title in those who claimed against the United States. In United States v. Lee
    Search
  42. cannot, it seems to me, be determinative as to the necessity of making the Commission a party. See Goldberg v. Daniels
    Search
  43. U. S. 218 . Cases cited in the opinion of the Court as following the rule of United States v. Lee
    Search
  44. In Goltra v. Weeks
    Search
  45. Maritime Commission. This cannot be done without joining the Maritime Commission as a party defendant. See Goldberg v. Daniels
    Search
  46. Cunningham v. Macon
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court Land v. Dollar
    Search
  48. United States v. Lee
    Search
  49. of United States v. Lee
    Search
  50. the Commission. In United States v. Lee
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial