United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Meyer
United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Meyer
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the-Court:
The case turns upon the construction to be given to sec. & of the act of March 3d, 1883 (22 Stat. at L. 599, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1059), which reads as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Navy to cause to be appraised in such a manner as may seem best all vessels of the Navy which have been stricken from the Navy Register under the provisions of the act making appropriations for the naval service;
The Relator contends that the only discretion committed to ■the respondent by the statute was completely exercised when ■he decided to offer the condemned vessel for sale, and advertised it therefor; and that upon relator’s compliance with the conditions of sale, namely, making the highest bid for the vessel above the appraised value, and accompanying the same with 'the purchase money, the right to the possession of the vessel ■became vested immediately in him, and it became the plain •duty of the respondent to deliver the same. We are unable to concur in this contention. It is reasonably practicable for Congress to. provide on broad lines only for the control and disposition of vessels belonging to the United States, and wide •discretion in respect of the many details thereof has necessarily been committed to the discretion of the executive department. ‘The statute under consideration does not, in terms, declare that a vessel when offered for sale shall not be withdrawn, but shall be declared sold to the highest bidder, regardless of conditions that may arise after advertisement rendering it important to reconsider the decision to sell, and to retain the vessel for the •uses of the government; nor can we interpret it so to mean. All that .it commands is that the vessel shall be offered for sale in a particular manner, and that “any vessel sold,” shall be -delivered to the purchaser. Congress might have directed the ■sale to be made at public auction to the highest bidder, instead •of through written bids to be opened upon the advertised date. Had this been done, it could not be successfully contended that the sale at such auction would be complete until the acceptance -of the highest bid. It is settled law that an auction sale, whether made by a private owner or by an officer under execution ■of a decree, is not complete until the bid shall have been accepted, and the property struck off and declared sold to the bidder. The seller may decline to accept the bid, and may withdraw the property from sale. Until acceptance of his bid, ■the bidder acquires no title to the property. Blossom v. Mil
There was no error in dismissing the petition, and the judgment will be affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.
A writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States was allowed on application of the appellant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.