Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/289/479/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:16:23+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 289 › Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co.
1. Review under writ of certiorari limited to that sought by petition. P. 289 U. S. 494.
2. Parties appearing in an equity suit in the District Court in response to orders therein inviting them to show cause why a temporary receivership should not be continued, are not precluded from objecting to the authority of the judge under an assignment, or to the inconsistency of his action with applicable court rules, or to the unfitness of the receivers, and should the receivership be continued in spite of these objections, they would be entitled to appeal. P. 289 U. S. 495.
3. An attack in a suit for a receivership in the District Court upon the appointment of receivers of the same property in an earlier independent suit in the same court, upon the grounds that the judge who made the appointment was incompetent to act and the persons appointed receivers unfit, held a collateral attack. P. 289 U. S. 495.
4. A collateral attack can be successful only where and to the extent that it discloses a want of power, as distinguished from error in the exertion of power that was possessed. P. 289 U. S. 496.
5. A collateral attack is not converted into a direct one by consolidating the suit in which it is made with the suit in which the proceeding attacked was taken. P. 289 U. S. 496.
6. Under 28 US.C. § 734, consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another. P. 289 U. S. 496.
7. Under 28 U.S.C. § 22, providing that the senior circuit judge of a circuit, "if the public interest requires," may designate "any circuit judge" of the circuit to hold a district court therein, and id., § 23, requiring the circuit judge so assigned to discharge all the judicial duties "for which he is so appointed, during the time for which he is so appointed," the senior circuit judge is authorized to assign himself, and also to make the designation selective, for a particular case. Pp. 289 U. S. 497-500.
8. This meaning of the words is confirmed by the legislative history of the provision and the practice under it. P. 289 U. S. 497.
9. Reenactment of a statutory provision without change implies legislative adoption of the prior practical construction of it. P. 289 U. S. 500.
10. The duty of deciding whether the public interest requires an assignment under § 22, supra, is on the judge making the assignment, and his decision thereon is not open to a collateral attack. P. 289 U. S. 501.
11. An attempt of a private party, by a bill in the District Court seeking a receiver, to set aside orders appointing receivers made by an assigned circuit judge in another suit in the same court, upon the ground that his assignment was invalid, cannot be regarded as a proceeding in quo warranto, and consequently as a direct attack. P. 289 U. S. 502.
12. A rule of the District Court providing that an assigned judge shall "do such work only as may be assigned to him by the senior district judge," is inconsistent with 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 and 23, as applied to a circuit judge assigned, under those sections, to the District Court for a particular case. P. 289 U. S. 503.
13. The same is true of a rule of the District Court providing that all applications for the appointment of receivers in equity causes shall be made to the judge holding the motion part of the court, and "to no other judge." P. 289 U. S. 503.
14. By 28 U.S.C. § 731, the power of the District Courts to make rules is confined to such as are "not inconsistent with an law of the United States," and it obviously would be thus limited even without the statute. P. 289 U. S. 503.
15. The power of a senior circuit judge to assign himself to sit in a particular case in the District Court is one that should be sparingly exercised and then only with care and discretion, and he occasions are rare in which the matter cannot be referred to the Chief Justice or the Circuit Justice. P. 289 U. S. 504.
16. The assignment of a judge to take charge through a receivership of immensely valuable property of public carriers, in a case of great public interest involving many diverse claims and difficult problems, is a task to be performed only upon careful consideration and with the utmost impartiality. P. 289 U. S. 504.
17. A difference of opinion between the senior circuit judge an the district judges, respecting the relative fitness of individuals and trust companies as equity receivers, held not a proper ground for taking the cause away from the district judge before whom it ordinarily would come, and bringing it before the assigning senior circuit judge, in this case. P. 289 U. S. 505.
18. As the action of the senior circuit judge in assigning himself to the District Court and appointing receivers in this matter is embarrassing to the receivership, and as, by his withdrawal now that embarrassment would be relieved, the Court suggests that he do withdraw and open the way for another judge to conduct the further proceedings. P. 289 U. S. 505.
Certiorari to review the reversal of a decree of the District Court in a suit for receivers. The decree was entered by a district judge and purported to vacate certain orders appointing and continuing receivers, etc., made by the senior circuit judge sitting in the District Court, in another suit, under an assignment made by himself. See 1 F.Supp. 809.
These cases exhibit an acute controversy between the Senior Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit and the District Judges of the Southern District of New York respecting the authority of a judge specially assigned to that district -- particularly the Senior Circuit Judge when so assigned -- to entertain an application for the appointment of receivers in a suit in equity.
Among the rules of the District Court for that district was one whereby a particular trust company was designated as a standing receiver in bankruptcy, and effect was given to that rule in all bankruptcy proceedings. There was no such rule respecting receivers in suits in equity, and the District Judges all regarded themselves as free in appointing such receivers to select any individual or trust company deemed competent and suitable for the particular task. But, not infrequently, they selected as an equity receiver the trust company which was designated by rule as a standing receiver in bankruptcy proceedings. The nature and importance of the equity receiverships for which a trust company was selected are not clearly disclosed in this record, but it is reasonably apparent that in no instance was the receivership at all comparable in scope or importance with the railroad receivership with which the present litigation is concerned.
In 1930, the Senior Circuit Judge, acting under 28 U.S.C. § 22 and reciting that the public interest required it, assigned himself to hold at any time a session or sessions of the District Court for that district, for the purpose of trying causes and entertaining and disposing of any matter which might come before him.
sought informally to persuade one or more of the District Judges that a trust company ought not to be selected as receiver, but failed to secure an acceptance of his view. Thereupon, acting under his assignment of 1930, he entertained the application for a receiver and appointed individual receivers.
This action of the Circuit Judge was followed a few days later by the adoption and promulgation by the District Judges of two new rules, known as 1-a and 11-a, effective July 1, 1932, and apparently designed to limit or restrict the action of assigned judges in that district. These rules will be set forth later on.
suit for a period beginning that day and continuing until the suit came to an end. This assignment, like that of 1930, recited that it was made under 28 U.S.C. § 22 and that the public interest required it.
"Sec. 22. The Chief Justice of the United States, or the circuit justice of any judicial circuit, or the senior circuit judge thereof, may, if the public interest requires, designate and assign any circuit judge of a judicial circuit to hold a district court within such circuit. . . ."
"During the period of service of any judge designated and assigned under this chapter, he shall have all the powers, and rights, and perform all the duties, of a judge of the district, . . . to which he has been assigned (excepting the power of appointment to a statutory position or of permanent designation of newspaper or depository of funds)."
"1-a. Any judge designated to sit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York shall do such work only as may be assigned to him by the senior district judge."
"11-a. All applications for the appointment of receivers in equity causes, in bankruptcy causes, and any other causes (except a receiver in bankruptcy may be appointed by a referee as provided in the Bankruptcy Rules), shall be made to the judge assigned [meaning assigned by the District Judges in their division of business] to hold the Bankruptcy and Motion Part of the business of the court, and to no other judge."
of cases for trial in said district, but in case they do not so agree, the senior circuit judge of the circuit in which the district lies shall make all necessary orders for the division of business and the assignment of cases for trial in said district."
"And whereas, Martin T. Manton, a Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Circuit of the United States designated and assigned to hold a District Court in the Southern District of New York in said Circuit, and acting as District Judge for the Southern District of New York in this Second Judicial Circuit, does not agree upon the division of business and assignment of cases for trial in the Southern District of New York, as provided in and pursuant to the rules of court for the Southern District of New York, heretofore adopted by the then United States District Judges for the Southern District of New York; it is hereby"
"Ordered, adjudged and decreed that, for a period of thirty days beginning with this day, all applications for the appointment of receivers in equity causes in the Southern District of New York may be made not only to the district judge designated to hear such application pursuant to Rule 11-a of the General Rules of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, but also to Martin T. Manton, Circuit Judge designated to act as District Judge to hold a District Court for the Southern District of New York."
as a public carrier in operating an extensive system of transportation within the City of New York and its environs; set forth with much detail that the defendant was in greatly embarrassed financial condition, had made default in the payment of taxes and other claims, and could not avoid making default in the payment of installments of interest and principal about to fall due upon bonds and other obligations secured by mortgages; alleged that its properties were in danger of being dismembered and largely wasted through competitive efforts by its many creditors to obtain satisfaction of their claims, that such wasteful strike would seriously impair and interfere with the discharge of its duties as a public carrier, that its properties could be preserved for equitable distribution among those entitled thereto only through the intervention of a court of equity, and that such intervention would make for a realization for all of the creditors of a substantially larger amount than if that relief were not granted. The prayer was that receivers be appointed to take charge of and preserve the defendant's properties, continue the operation of its railroad system for the accommodation of the public, and collect and properly appropriate the income until the final decree, and that the court marshal and administer the assets and by its decree ascertain and enforce the rights, liens, and equities of the several creditors.
The suit plainly was within the jurisdiction of the District Court as a federal court. The parties were citizens of different states and the amount or value in controversy was in excess of the minimum prescribed in the jurisdictional statute.
Immediately after the bill was filed, the defendant appeared and, conformably to a resolution of its board of directors, answered the bill, admitted the allegations therein, joined in the plaintiff's prayer, and consented to the appointment of receivers.
Later in the same day, August 26, the parties appeared before the Senior Circuit Judge, sitting under the assignment and order of the day before, and, after examining the bill, affidavit and answer, the judge made an interlocutory order appointing temporary receivers and granting the usual temporary injunction against the institution of suits against the defendant company, except on leave granted in that suit. The order also directed (1) that, on September 22, the parties show cause before him, as such assigned Circuit Judge, why the receivership should not be continued during the pendency of the suit, and (2) that, at that hearing, "any other creditor of the defendant or other party in interest may be heard."
The receivers took possession of the properties, and have since been operating them under orders made from time to time by the Senior Circuit Judge in that suit.
any of its rights against the Interborough Company or the latter's receivers, and that such receivers be required to keep separate accounts in respect of the railroads owned by the Manhattan Company. Upon the presentation of this petition, the Senior Circuit Judge made an interlocutory order granting its several prayers, appointing a separate temporary receiver for the Manhattan Company and its assets, and granting the usual injunction. This order also required the parties to show cause on September 22 why the extension of the receivership to the Manhattan Company and its assets should not be continued during the pendency of the suit, and provided that, upon such hearing, "any other creditor of the defendant or other party in interest may be heard."
Several committees representing different groups of creditors, some of the Interborough Company and others of the Manhattan Company, were permitted to intervene and become parties, and many orders were made relating to the employment of counsel for the receivers and the conduct of the receivership.
On the return day of the rules to show cause, the parties and many others in interest appeared and were heard by the Senior Circuit Judge, but Benjamin F. Johnson and Lillian Boehm, to be mentioned presently, were not among those who appeared. Both refrained from participating in the hearing or otherwise appearing in the suit. As a result of the hearing, the Senior Circuit Judge, on September 28, made an order or decree continuing the receiverships of the Interborough and Manhattan during the further pendency of the suit.
In the meantime, another separate suit for the appointment of receivers of the Manhattan and Interborough Companies was commenced, and that suit needs now to be described.
District Judge, and none had been so committed, and (4) because rule 11-a of the District Court required all applications for the appointment of receivers in equity to be made to the judge assigned by the District Judges to hold the motion part of the court, and "to no other judge," and not only was the Senior Circuit Judge not assigned to that part of the court, but a District Judge duly assigned thereto was sitting therein at the time, and willing and ready to act upon any such application. Upon these grounds, Johnson prayed that the Senior Circuit Judge's assignment to the District Court for the purpose of hearing matters in the American Brake Shoe Company's suit, his division of business order directing that applications for the appointing of receivers in equity might be made to him, his orders appointing temporary receivers for the Interborough Company and a temporary receiver for the Manhattan Company, and all other orders made by him in the suit be held void and vacated.
On the same day, September 21, Lillian Boehm was given leave, by the District Judge sitting in the motion part of the court, to intervene as a party plaintiff in Johnson's suit, which she did. She was a stockholder in the Manhattan Company and a secured creditor of the Interborough Company. In her bill of intervention, she asserted there was imperative need for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of and to preserve the property of the Interborough Company, continue the operation of its railroad system for the accommodation of the public, and collect and properly appropriate the income thereof until the final decree; assailed the orders of the Senior Circuit Judge in the American Brake Shoe Company's suit upon the same grounds that were set forth in Johnson's bill, and joined in the prayers of his bill.
continuing the Interborough and Manhattan receiverships, was assailed as void upon the grounds theretofore advanced against the orders appointing temporary receivers. Thenceforth, the assault was directed chiefly against the order continuing the receiverships, the orders naming temporary receivers having served their purpose and being superseded.
In their bills and supplements, Johnson and Boehm also complained that the receivers appointed for the Interborough and Manhattan Companies in the earlier suit of the American Brake Shoe Company had theretofore had, or then had, relations with the Interborough and Manhattan Companies and with particular groups of the creditors of one or the other of those companies which would tend to prevent them from discharging their duties impartially and with due regard to the rights of all who were parties in interest. But there was no claim that either Johnson or Boehm had presented this complaint in the suit wherein the receivers were appointed and in which they were acting.
In the Johnson suit, Johnson and Boehm separately procured, from the District Judge, sitting in the motion part of the court, rules requiring the defendants in that suit to show cause on October 4 why orders should not be granted vacating (1) the Senior Circuit Judge's assignment of himself to sit in the District Court to hear matters in the American Brake Shoe Company's suit, (2) his division of business order directing that applications for the appointment of receivers in equity might be made to him, and (3) his several orders in the American Brake Shoe Company's suit, including those appointing receivers, and why independent receivers for the Manhattan Company, and likewise for the Interborough Company, should not be appointed in the Johnson suit.
motion part of the court, and were heard by him. At that time, answers to the bills and supplements had not been filed, and as yet were not due. Affidavits were tendered by the defendants to refute the complaint questioning the personal fitness of the receivers for the service for which they were appointed. But the District Judge put this and related questions of fact to one side as being outside the scope of the hearing, which he ruled was confined to the question whether the Senior Circuit Judge could entertain the application for receivers in the suit of the American Brake Shoe Company and make the orders which were assailed.
Judge accordingly passed a decree on October 18 vacating all decrees and orders made by the Senior Circuit Judge in the American Brake Shoe Company's suit. But, just before giving that decree, the District Judge passed another, on his own motion and over the objection of the parties to the suit of the American Brake Shoe Company, consolidating that suit and the Johnson suit. Consolidation was ordered because, as the District Judge said, there was in his mind "a residuum of doubt" whether, so long as the suits remained separate, an order properly could be passed in the Johnson suit vacating the orders made in the other and earlier suit.
On appeals to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the consolidating decree and the vacating decree were both reversed. [Footnote 3] Johnson and Boehm then separately petitioned this Court for a review on certiorari and the petitions were granted.
Counsel for petitioners now assume, that in granting the petitions, this Court intended to review the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals on the appeal from the consolidating decree, as well as its decision on the appeal from the vacating decree, but the assumption is without any basis. In the petitions, complaint was made of the reversal of the vacating decree, but not of the reversal of the consolidating decree, and the reasons advanced to obtain a review related only to the reversal of the vacating decree. Plainly the petitions sought a review of the latter, and of it only, and obviously the review granted was not intended to be broader than that sought in the petitions.
railways are in such financial straits that a court of equity must take over their assets to prevent their dismemberment by execution, attachment, and the like. The plaintiffs, and those who have intervened (in the Johnson suit), ask for receivers, just as do the parties to the American Brake Shoe Company suit. The dispute touches merely who shall be the receivers, and who the judge to have charge of the receivership."
Next in order are the questions respecting the Senior Circuit Judge's assignment of himself to sit in the District Court to hear matters in the American Brake Shoe Company suit. The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 22, provides that the Chief Justice, or the Circuit Justice of the circuit, or the Senior Circuit Judge thereof, may, "if the public interest requires," designate and assign "any circuit judge" of the circuit to hold a District Court therein. The same authority to assign that is given to the Chief Justice and the Circuit Justice, respectively, is also given to the Senior Circuit Judge, and that authority is to assign "any Circuit Judge" of the particular circuit. There are no restrictive words. There can be no doubt that, under this section, the Chief Justice may assign the Senior Circuit Judge of the circuit, he being one of the Circuit Judges thereof, and equally there can be no doubt that the Circuit Justice may do the same. May the Senior Circuit Judge assign himself? The words of the section, taken literally, mean that he may do so, and only by implying restrictive words which are not there can the section be held to mean otherwise. But the real meaning is not reflected alone in the words of the section, for there are other considerations which point to the literal meaning as the true one.
course of action. Some of the assignments were generally to hold a District Court in a named district; others were to hold a particular division of a District Court, or a term of such court at one of several places fixed by law, and still others were to hold a District Court to hear and determine a designated cause or causes.
Early in 1912, the Senior Circuit Judge of the Second Circuit assigned himself to sit in a District Court to hear matters arising in a specified receivership suit. While he was sitting in that suit, an intervener challenged his authority to make the assignment or act under it. A hearing was had on the question, after which the judge, in a considered opinion, published at the time, [Footnote 12] upheld the assignment and denied the motion presenting the challenge.
A review was not sought, nor was the question further agitated.
an assignment for a particular case, or for one of several divisions of the court, or for a limited period such as thirty or sixty days. The section makes the public interest, as found by the assigning authority, the criterion. If that interest is found to require only a limited assignment, it would seem that the action taken should be limited accordingly. The succeeding section (23) requires a Circuit Judge who is assigned under § 22 to discharge all the judicial duties "for which he is so appointed, during the time for which he is so appointed." In this, there is a plain implication that the assignment may be for particular duties and for a limited time.
The District Judge did not rule on the part of the attack wherein it was contended that the assignment was invalid because there was no public interest requiring it, but the Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the contention on the ground that the recital or finding in the assignment that public interest required it is conclusive in this proceeding. Plainly, the Circuit Court of Appeals was right. By § 22, the decision as to requiring public interest is left to the one having the power to assign. The duty and the responsibility are with him -- as well when he is a Senior Circuit Judge as when he is the Chief Justice or a Circuit Justice. His decision that there is a requiring public interest is not open to a collateral attack such as is here presented. [Footnote 15] And, were it so open, no litigant could with any safety submit any matter to an assigned judge -- a situation which would involve intolerable uncertainty and embarrassment to both public and private interests.
In the course of his opinion, the District Judge suggested that the assault on the assignment and on the Senior Circuit Judge's authority to act under it "sounded in quo warranto," and so might possibly be regarded as being direct, rather than collateral. But the suggestion was ill grounded. Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, not to a correction of what already has been done under it or to a vindication of private rights. It is an extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, and in this instance could have been brought by the United States, and by it only, for there is no statute delegating to an individual the right to resort to it. [Footnote 16] Besides, such a proceeding, to reach its objective in a situation like that here disclosed, must be brought against the person who is charged with exercising an office or authority without lawful right. [Footnote 17] The Johnson suit was not against the judge acting under the assignment, but was wholly between others who were private litigants. So, granting that an attack in a quo warranto proceeding would have been direct, and not merely collateral, it must be held that the suit before the District Judge was not such a proceeding.
in that connection were just what they would have been had he been so assigned by the Chief Justice or the Circuit Justice, instead of by himself. No doubt he was under a duty to recognize and respect all valid rules of the District Court which were applicable to the proceedings before him, but he was not under a duty to give effect to rules which were either invalid or inapplicable.
One of the rules disregarded, 1-a, provides that an assigned judge shall "do such work only as may be assigned to him by the senior district judge." In this there is an attempt to invest the senior judge of the district with a discretion to determine what work an assigned judge shall do, and also an attempt to exclude him from any other work. Here, the Circuit Judge was sitting in the District Court under an assignment specially designating the work which he was to do. The rule says in effect that this work could not be done by him unless the senior judge of the district approved the special designation, and it means that this judge may either approve or disapprove. In short, it attempts to give him a power of veto over the designation, and thus to interfere with the work specified. By statute, 28 U.S.C. § 731, the power of the District Courts to make rules is confined to such as are "not inconsistent with any law of the United States," and it obviously would be thus limited even without the statute. [Footnote 18] Not only does § 22 authorize a special assignment such as is shown here, but § 23 requires the assigned judge to discharge the duties for which he is so assigned. It is apparent, therefore, that, as applied to such an assignment, the rule operates as an interference with the discharge of those duties, and is in that regard inconsistent with §§ 22 and 23, and invalid.
equity causes shall be made to the judge holding the motion part of the court, and "to no other judge." As it is sought to be applied here, this rule is subject to objections like those just assigned for condemning the application sought to be made of rule 1-a. The judge to whom the application for receivers was presented was sitting in the District Court on the equity side. Under § 22, he was specially assigned to that court to hear and determine all proceedings in the suit in which the application was made, and § 23 laid on him a duty to conform to the assignment. The rule forbids him to hear the application notwithstanding his special assignment. Thus, the rule conflicts with §§ 22 and 23 and must fall.
What has been said shows that the collateral attack cannot succeed, and that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be affirmed. But, in the interest of right judicial administration, and to avoid any misapprehension as to what is here decided, something more needs to be said.
thousands of persons in its work and carrying hundreds of thousands of passengers each day. The carrier was in greatly embarrassed condition, had thousands of creditors whose interests were divergent, and was confronted with possible forfeiture of some of its franchises. All this shows that the situation was one in which the assignment of a judge to take charge of the receivership, if one was to be assigned, was a task which needed to be performed upon careful consideration and with the utmost impartiality. The difference of opinion, between the Senior Circuit Judge and the District Judges, respecting the relative fitness of individuals and trust companies as equity receivers, was not a proper ground for taking the cause away from the District Judge before whom it ordinarily would come and bringing it before the assigning Senior Circuit Judge. [Footnote 19] Granting that the latter was most sincere in what he did, there was yet no compelling reason for assigning himself. Had he reflected, he probably would not have made such an assignment; but he acted hastily and evidently with questionable wisdom. This action has embarrassed and is embarrassing the receivership. If he were now to withdraw from further participation in the receivership proceedings, the embarrassment would be relieved, and the belief is ventured here that, on further reflection, he will recognize the propriety of so doing and, by withdrawing, will open the way for another judge with appropriate authority to conduct the further proceedings.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS did not hear the argument or participate in the decision.
* Together with No. 721, Boehm v. Manhattan Railway Co. et al.
See American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 1 F.Supp. 802, 825-827.
Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Company, 1 F.Supp. 809.
Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 61 F.2d 934, 937.
28 U.S.C. § 227; Christian v. R. Hoe & Co., 63 F.2d 218; Mitchell v. Lay, 48 F.2d 79, 84, 85; Kingsport Press v. Brief English Systems, 54 F.2d 497; Pacific Northwest Packing Co. v. Allen, 109 F. 515; Blake v. District Court, 59 F.2d 78.
Cohen v. Portland Lodge, 152 F. 357, 359.
Central Republic Bank v. Caldwell, 58 F.2d 721, 729.
1 Freeman on Judgments (5th Ed.) §§ 305-308, 315; Vanfleet on Collateral Attack, §§ 2, 3.
Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327, 152 U. S. 337-340; Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230, 210 U. S. 237; Ex parte Roe, 234 U. S. 70, 234 U. S. 72; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U. S. 142, 247 U. S. 149, 247 U. S. 152.
Toledo, St.L. & K.C. R. Co. v. Continental Trust Co., 95 F. 497, 506; Taylor v. Logan Trust Co., 289 F. 51, 53; Nolte v. Hudson Navigation Co., 11 F.2d 680, 682; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285, 145 U. S. 293.
Congressional Record, Vol. 45, part 4, pp. 3547, 3999, 4000; Vol. 46, part 1, pp. 302, 303; Vol 46, part 1, p. 840; Vol. 46, part 3, p. 2138; Vol. 46, part 3, pp. 4003, 4004; Vol. 46, part. 4, p. 4006.
In 1912, Judge Sanborn was requested by the other Circuit Judges in that circuit, and by the District Judge who was specially concerned, to take charge of an important railroad receivership suit in one of the districts within the circuit. Judge Sanborn indicated that he would be willing to undertake the service if he were assigned thereto by the Chief Justice or the Circuit Justice, but that he was quite unwilling to assign himself to the District Court for the purpose, because such an assignment would have a personal side approaching impropriety. One of the Circuit Judges and the District Judge of the particular district then applied to the Circuit Justice to make an assignment of Judge Sanborn, which was done. Judge Sanborn's indisposition to assign himself continued, and, in like circumstances, he was assigned by the Circuit Justice to District Courts in that circuit on twelve different occasions in the years 1912 to 1923, each assignment being limited to a particular year, but otherwise general. The receiverships of the Wabash Railroad and the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad were among the matters which came before Judge Sanborn under those assignments.
Judge Sanborn's successor as Senior Circuit Judge accepted and conformed to the general practice.
Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 221 F. 440.
Act Sept. 14, 1922, c. 306, 42 Stat. 837.
Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U. S. 552, 284 U. S. 557; McCaughn v. Hershey Chocolate Co., 283 U. S. 488, 283 U. S. 493; Heald v. District of Columbia, 254 U. S. 20, 254 U. S. 23.
People v. Ballard, 134 N.Y. 269, 293, 32 N.E. 54; People ex rel. v. Extraordinary Special & Trial Term of Supreme Court, 220 N.Y. 487, 491, 116 N.E. 384; State v. Lewis, 107 N.C. 967, 977, 12 S.E. 457, 13 S.E. 247; Cocke v. Halsey, 16 Pet. 71, 41 U. S. 87; Ex parte American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U. S. 35, 230 U. S. 45.
Wallace v. Anderson, 5 Wheat. 291; Nebraska ex rel. Wakely v. Lockwood, 3 Wall. 236; Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U. S. 537; First National Bank v. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416, 244 U. S. 427-428; First National Bank v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, 263 U. S. 660-661.
High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3d ed., § 604.
Washington-Southern Navigation Co. v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co., 263 U. S. 629, 263 U. S. 635, and cases cited.
See Appleton v. Smith, 1 Fed.Cas. No. 498, page 1075; Cole Silver Mining Co. v. Virginia & G.H. Water Co., 6 Fed.Cas. No. 2990, pp. 72, 74; Hadden v. Natchaug Silk Co., 84 F. 80; Harkin v. Brundage, 276 U. S. 36, 276 U. S. 55.

References: v. 
 § 734
 § 22
 § 23
 § 22
 § 731
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 731
 § 22
 § 23
 § 22
 § 23
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 604
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.