United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218 (1913). · Go Syfert
Search
United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218 (1913). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“no more than the patent statute was the copyright act intended to authorize agreements in unlawful restraint of trade....”
257 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 36 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp. (ca1, 1994-09-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1915 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1915 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp.
1st Cir. · 1994 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
no more than the patent statute was the copyright act intended to authorize agreements in unlawful restraint of trade....
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Klint L. Mowrer v. DOT (2×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
Id. at 221 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Fullard-Leo
9th Cir. · 1946 · confidence medium
Co., 109 U.S. 446, 457 , 3 S.Ct. 292 , 609, 27 L.Ed. 992 ; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 67-69 , 6 S.Ct. 608 , 29 L.Ed. 805 ; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 , 16 S.Ct. 443 , 40 L.Ed. 599 ; Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 60, 69, 70 , 26 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed. 935 ; Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473, 475, 476 , 26 S.Ct. 667 , 50 L.Ed. 1113 ; Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70, 77, 78 , 29 S.Ct. 31 , 53 L.Ed. 92 ; Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218, 221, 222 , 34 S.Ct. 84 , 58 L.Ed. 191 ; New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U.S. 52, 58 , 37 S.Ct. 348 , 61 L.Ed. 588 . (3) The doctrine of Erie Railway v. Tompk…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Farley v. Albers
D.C. Cir. · 1940 · confidence medium
Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218, 221, 222 , 34 S.Ct. 84 , 58 L.Ed. 191 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Public Service Commissioners v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Mass. · 1919 · confidence medium
As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes in Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218, 221, 222 , “there is another that comes, earlier in point of logic.
examined Cited "see" Clackamas County, Ore. v. McKay (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1954 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Dredging Co. v. Cochrane, supra, and, as to contracts to purchase, International Trading Corporation v. Edison, 1939, 71 App.D.C. 210 , 109 F.2d 825 , certiorari denied, 1940, 310 U.S. 652 , 60 S.Ct. 1099 , 84 L.Ed. 1417 . . 1913, 231 U.S. 218 , 34 S.Ct. 84 , 58 L.Ed. 191 . . 1949, 337 U.S. 682 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 . .
examined Cited "see" Land v. Dollar (4×)
SCOTUS · 1947 · signal: see · confidence high
See Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Morrison v. Work
SCOTUS · 1925 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U. S. 218 ; Wells v. Roper, 246 U. S. 335, 337 ; Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Morrison v. Work
SCOTUS · 1925 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218 ; Wells v. Roper, 246 U.S. 335, 337 ; Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States Ex Rel. Goldberg
v.
Daniels, Secretary of the Navy
79.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 1913.
231 U.S. 218
Mr. Albert N. Eastman and Mr. Charles Poe for plaintiff in error:, Mr. Morgan H. Beach, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Davis was on the brief, for defendant in error.
Holmes.
Cited by 80 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 58%
Citer courts: First Circuit (1)
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a petition for a mandamus directing the Secretary of the Navy to deliver the United States Cruiser Boston to the'petitioner. The petition alleges that after survey, condemnation and appraisal the Cruiser was stricken from the Naval Register under the act of August 5, 1882, c. 391, § 2, 22 Stat. 284, 296; that thereafter the Secretary of the Navy advertised for proposals of purchase under the act of March 3,1883, c. 141, 22 Stat. 582, 599; that the petitioner bid more than the appraised value, sending a certified check for the whole sum bid; that when the bids were opened on the day fixed the petitioner’s was the highest, but that the Secretary refused to deliver the vessel and sent back the check, which the petitioner holds subject to the Secretary’s order. The answer admits the facts, but sets up that the bid is not an acceptance of an offer, but is itself only an offer, subject to be accepted or not at the discretion of the Secretary and that the Secretary never accepted the petitioner’s bid, the Government having decided to lend the Cruiser to the Governor of Oregon for use by the Naval Militia of that State. The petitioner demurred, but the petition was dismissed on the ground that the discretion of the Secretary was not ended by the receipt and opening of the bids, even though they satisfied all the conditions prescribed. 37 App. D. C. 282; Sub nom. United States v. Meyer.

We see no sufficient reason for throwing doubt upon this premise for the decision, but there is another that comes earlier in point of logic. The United States is the[*222] owner in possession of the vessel. It cannot be interfered with behind its back and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit must fail. Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10. International Postal Supply Co., v. Bruce, 194 U. S. 601, 606. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 60, 69. Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 473, 476.

Judgment affirmed.