Humel v. Hoogendorn
District Court, D. Alaska
This case is before me on numerous motions of the defendant to vacate findings of fact and conclusions of law of my predecessor and to set aside the verdict and judgment by him and to grant a new trial therein.
1Opinion of the Court
TUCKER, District Judge.
It is contended by defendant that Judge Murane was legally removed from the office of judge of this court, that his removal was to take effect on November 1, 1913, and that, therefore, all acts done by him on and after that date were illegal; on the other hand, it is contended by the plaintiff that Judge Murane acted as de facto, judge of this court on November 1 and on a part of November 3, 1913, and up to the time of the qualification of his successor, and Judge Murane’s ejection from office on that day, as appears in the record, and that any act done by him cannot be…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- STANTON v. Embrey, AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Shurtleff v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- McAllister v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Reagan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gates v. City of Tenakee SpringsAlaska Supreme Court · 1998
- Greenberg v. LesamisDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1914