# In Re Sawyer

> Supreme Court of the United States · January 9, 1888 · 124 U.S. 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883055

## Case

- **Full name:** In RE SAWYER and Others
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** January 9, 1888
- **Citations:** 124 U.S. 200; 8 S. Ct. 482; 31 L. Ed. 402; 1888 U.S. LEXIS 1855
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Waite
- **Judges:** G-Eat, Field, Waite, Haelan
- **Cited by:** 396 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883055

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that while a court of equity does not have “jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers, . . . the courts of law, . . . either by certiorari, error, or appeal, or by mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, or information in the nature of a writ of quo …
- holding that a court of equity had no jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers

## Opinion text

*223 Me. Chief Justice Waite,
dissenting.
I am not prepared to decide that an officer of a municipal government cannot, under any circumstances, apply to a court of chancery to restrain the municipal authorities from proceeding to remove him from his office without the authority .of law. There may be cases, in my opinion, when the tardy remedies of quo warranto, certiorari, and other like- writs will be entirely inadequate. I can easily conceive of circumstances, under which a removal, even for a short period, would be productive of irremediable mischief. Such cases may rarely occur, and the propriety of such- an application may not often be seen; but if one can arise, and if the exercise of the jurisdiction can ever be proper, the proceedings of the court in due course upon a bill filed for such relief will not be void, even though the grounds on which it is asked may be insufficient. If the court can take jurisdiction of such a case under any circumstances, it certainly must be permitted to inquire, when a bill of that character is filed, whether the case is one that entitles the party to the relief he asks, and, if necessary to prevent wrong in the mean time, to issue in its discretion a .temporary restraining order for that purpose. Such an order will not be void, even though it may be found on examination to have been improvidently issued. While in force it must be obeyed, and the court will not be without jurisdiction to punish for its contempt. Such, in my opinion, was this case, and I, therefore, dissent from the judgment which has been ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9883055. Public record. Not legal advice.