Case ID: hill_7/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nelson, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tappan, appellant, vs. Gray, respondent.
    
    Where G. entered upon the discharge of the duties of flour inspector under color of an appointment by the governor made during the recess of the senate, and T., the former inspector, claimed the right to hold over until a successor was appointed by the governor and senate: Held, on a bill filed by T., praying for an injunction and a receiver of .the fees and emoluments of the office until the rights of the parties could be determined at law, that the court of chancery had not jurisdiction, though G. was utterly insolvent; and this, without regard to the question whether his appointment was valid.
    On appeal from the court of chancery, where a decree was made reversing the decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit. For a statement of the case, and the opinion of the chancellor, see 9 Paige 507 et seq. The case was argued here by
    
      J W. Edmonds, for the appellant, and
    
      G. P. Barker, (attorney general,) and D. Graham, for the respondent.
   Nelson, Ch. J.

concurred with the chancellor respecting the jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of this kind, but expressed no opinion as to the legality of the governor’s act in appointing the respondent to perform the duties of flour inspector.

Root, senator, also concurred with the chancellor on the question of jurisdiction, but dissented from him as to the legality of the respondent’s appointment.

On the question being put Shall this decree be reversed ?” all the members of the court present who heard the argument, eighteen in number, voted for affirming.

Decree affirmed.