Ex Parte Secombe.

ney and counsellor in its courts, and also enumerated the offences for which he may be removed, and prescribed the mode of proceeding against him. And the relator complains that it appears by the transcript from the record, and the certificate of the clerk, which he filed with his petition for a mandamus, that in the sentence of removal he is not found guilty of any specific offence which would, under the statute of the Territory, justify his removal, and had no notice of any charge against him, and no opportunity of being heard in his défence.

It is true that, in the statutes of Minnesota, rules are prescribed for the admission of attorneys and counsellors, and also for their removal. But it will appear, upon examination, that, in describing some of the offences for which they may be removed, the statute has done but little, if anything, more than enact the general rules upon which the courts of common law have always acted; and have not, in any material degree, narrowed the discretion they exercised. Indeed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to enumerate and define, with legal precision, every offence for which an attorney or counsellor ought to be removed. And the Legislature, for the most part, can only prescribe general rules and principles to be carried into execution by the court with judicial discretion and justice as cases may arise.

The revised code of Minnesota, (ch. 93, sec. 7, subdivision 2,) makes it the duty of the attorney and counsellor "to maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers."

The 19th section of the same chapter enumerates certain offences for which an attorney or counsellor may be removed; and, among others, enacts that he may be removed for a wilful violation of any of the provisions of section 7, above mentioned. And, in its sentence of removal, the court say that the relator, being one of the attorneys and counsellors of the court, had, by his acts as such, in open court, at the term at which he was removed, been guilty of a wilful violation of the provision above mentioned, and also of a violation of that part of his official oath by which he was sworn to conduct himself with fidelity to the court.

The statute, it will be observed, does not attempt to specify the acts which shall be deemed disrespectful to the court or the judicial officers. It must therefore rest with the court to determine what acts amount to a violation of this provision; and this is a judicial power vested in the court by the Legislature. The removal of the relator, therefore, for the cause above mentioned, was the act of a court done in the exercise of a judicial discretion which the law authorized and required

Ex Parte Secombe.

it to exercise. And the other cause assigned for the removal stands on the same ground.

It is not necessary to inquire whether this decision of the Territorial court can be reviewed here in any other form of proceeding. But the court are of opinion that he is not entitled to a remedy by mandamus. Undoubtedly the judgment of an inferior court may be reversed in a superior one which possesses appellate power over it, and a mandate be issued, commanding it to carry into execution the judgment of the appellate tribunal. But it cannot be reviewed and reversed in this term of proceeding, however erroneous it may be or supposed to be. And we are not aware of any case where a mandamus has issued to an inferior tribunal, commanding it to reverse or annul its decision, where the decision was in its nature a judicial act, and within the scope of its jurisdiction and discretion.

These principles apply with equal force to the proceedings adopted by the court in making the removal.

The statute of Minnesota, under which the court acted, directs that the proceedings to remove an attorney or counsellor must be taken by the court, on its own motion, for matter within its knowledge; or may be taken on the informa tion of another. And, in the latter case, it requires that the information should be in writing, and notice be given to the party, and a day given to him to answer and deny the sufficiency of the accusation, or deny its truth.

In this case, it appears that the offences charged were committed in open court, and the proceedings to remove the relator were taken by the court upon its own motion. And it appears by his affidavit that he had no notice that the court intended to proceed against him; had no opportunity of being heard in his defence, and did not know that he was dismissed from the bar until the term was closed, and the court had adjourned to the next term.

Now, in proceeding to remove the relator, the court was necessarily called on to decide whether, in a case where the offence was committed in open court, and the proceeding was had by the court on its own motion, the statute of Minnesota required that notice should be given to the party, and an opportunity afforded him to be heard in his defence. The court, it seems, were of opinion that no notice was necessary, and proceeded without it; and, whether this decision was erroneous or not, yet it was made in the exercise of judicial authority, where the subject-matter was within their jurisdiction, and it cannot therefore be revised and annulled in this form of proceeding.

Shaffer v. Scudday.

Upon this view of the subject, it would be useless to grant a rule to show cause; for if the Territorial court made a return stating what they had done, in the precise form in which the sentence of dismissal now appears in the papers exhibited by the relator, a peremptory mandamus could not issue to restore him to the office he has lost.

The motion must therefore be overruled.

WILLIAM A. SHAFFER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v, JAMES A. SCUDDAY.

IN 1841, Congress granted to the State of Louisiana 500,000 acres of land, for the purposes of internal improvement, and in 1849 granted also the whole of the swamp and overflowed lands which may be found unfit for cultivating. In both cases, patents were to be issued to individuals under State authority. In a case of conflict between two claimants, under patents granted by the State of Louisiana, this court has no jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, given in favor of one of the claimants.

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Benjamin for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Taylor for the defendant.

Upon the question of jurisdiction, Mr. Benjamin's point was as follows:

The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided, by a decree reversing the judgment of the District Court, that the Secretary of the Interior had no authority to make the decision revoking Scud day's location, and held his title superior to Shaffer's, who claimed under an entry made on the authority of the Secretary's decision.

The case is therefore before the court under that clause of the 25th section of the judiciary act which empowers it to take appellate jurisdiction from the highest State courts, where "is drawn in question the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against the validity," and is fully within the principles decided in Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 Howard, 344.

The sole question in the cause, then, is, whether the Secretary had authority to decide, and did rightly decide, that' Scudday's location was null, and must be revoked.

This is hardly an open question in this court.

The 8th section of the act of 1841, under which Scudday claims, directs the locations to be made on "any public land,

Shaffer v. Scudday.

except such as is or may be reserved from sale by any law of Congress."

This court has decided in the cases above cited, and particularly in that in 15 Howard, that the act of 1841 vested no present title in the State of Louisiana, but was a mere authority to enter lands in the same manner as individuals could enter them; and that the entry under a location made by virtue of a State warrant, and backed by a State patent, did not confer the fee in the land, which is only divested by a patent issued by the United States.

Now, although the Secretary of the Interior approved the location, he did so under the mistaken supposition that the land was "public land," whereas, in point of fact, Congress had already conveyed title to it by the grant in the swamp-land

law of 1849.

Before any patent was issued by the United States, therefore, Scudday's entry was revoked under the authority which has been universally conceded to exist in the offices of the Land Office, since the decision of this court, made thirty years ago, and never subsequently called in question. Chotard v. Pope, 12 Wheaton, 587.

The case may be summed up in few words, as follows:

1st. Shaffer claims title under a grant made by statute of the United States, vesting the fee in him as fully as a patent would, if issued directly to him, Strother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, 454: Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 Howard, 844.

2d. Scudday claims under an inchoate title from the United States, not only still incomplete, but which it is impossible ever to render complete, and his title has been erroneously preferred by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, only because he holds a patent from the State.

But no State authority can confer a right in land sufficient to eject a patentee under the United States. Bagnell v. Broderich, 13 Peters, 436.

Mr. Taylor objected to the jurisdiction of this court, upon the following ground:

1. By reference to the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, it will be seen that the question raised as to the construction of the act of 1849 was not decided by the court. The court expressly said that they did "not consider it necessary to decide that question.' "The construction of the act of 1849, by the Secretary of the Interior, may be strictly correct, and yet it does not follow that the location of a warrant, under the internal-improvement law of 1841, which had been approv ed by the proper department of the Government, and for which

Shaffer v. Scudday.

a patent had been subsequently issued by the State, could be revoked, so as to destroy the title conferred by the patent. The question would have been different, if, after the passage by Congress of the act of 1849, the United States had granted the land away from the State of Louisiana. Such was not the case; and as both the acts of 1834 and of 1849 were grants of land to the State, we cannot go behind the patent which the State has granted." From this it is clear that there was no decision against the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, &c., &c., in the highest court of Louisiana; and that inasmuch as no error can be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, other "than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the questions of validity or construction," &c., therefore, there was no right to a writ of error in this case, and that the case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 1 Statutes at Large, p. 85, sec. 25; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 Howard, 1.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana:

It appears that a petitory action was brought by Scudday, the defendant in error, against Shaffer, the plaintiff in error, to recover a quarter section of land described in the pleadings.

The defendant in error derives his title in the following manner: By the eighth section of an act of Congress of the 4th September, 1841, the Government of the United States granted to each of the several States specified in the act, and among them to Louisiana, 500,000 acres of land, for the purposes of internal improvement. The act provided that the selections of the land were to be made in such manner as the Legislature of the State should direct, the locations to be made on any public lands, except such as were or might be reserved from sale by any law of Congress, or proclamation of the President of the United States. The ninth section of the act provided that the net proceeds of the sales of the lands so granted should be applied to objects of internal improvement within the State, such as roads, railways, bridges, canals, and improvement of water-courses and draining of swamps. An act of the Legisla ture of Louisiana of 1844 provided that warrants for the location of the lands should be sold in the same manner as the lands. were located; and it was made the duty of the Governor to issue patents for the lands located by warrants, whenever he should be satisfied that they had been properly located. The defendant in error, being the holder of such a warrant, located it on