ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, the case being thus:
The charter of Georgetown provides that on the fourth Monday of February in each two years, the citizens shall elect a mayor, 'to continue in office two years and until a successor is duly elected.' The person having the greatest number of votes is to be declared elected; and in the event of an equal number of votes being given to two or more candidates, two council-boards, of which the corporation is composed, are to elect from the persons having such equal number.
With this charter in force, Crawford, being in 1859 mayor of the city, and then duly in office, was in that year a candidate for re-election. His opposing candidate was one Addison. The electors having voted on the election day, the judges of election returned Crawford as the person elected. He accordingly presented himself to the city councils, and offered to take the usual oath. They, however, on a count made by themselves of the vote, declared that Addison was really elected. He and not Crawford was accordingly sworn into office and entered upon the duties of mayor. Crawford then proceeded by quo warranto in the Federal court of the District, to test Addison's right to the place; the proceeding being in the usual form of one by the United States at the relation of the party aggrieved; in this instance Crawford. On this proceeding the jury brought in a verdict that 'the votes received by each candidate make the vote a tie.' The court, with the assent of Addison's attorney, refused to receive the verdict, and having directed the jury to return to their room and again consider of their verdict, they brought in a new verdict, on which a judgment of ouster was given. To review this judgment Addison took a writ of error from this court, giving a bond in $3000. The bond, which was to 'the United States of America,' recited that the Circuit Court for the District in a suit of the United States at the relation of Crawford, had lately adjudged that Addison should not intermeddle with the office, privileges, franchises, &c., of mayor, and that he 'be taken to satisfy the United States for his usurpation thereof, and that the said Crawford, relator, recover against Addison the sum of $_ for his costs.' And it bound Addison and his sureties, to 'prosecute the said writ of error with effect, and to answer all damages and costs if he shall fail to make his plea good.'
The writ of error having been held by the Court of the District to be a supersedeas of the judgment of ouster, Crawford applied to this court in 1859 for a mandamus on the Circuit Court to enforce it, notwithstanding the writ of error. The arguments of his counsel in this court were:
1st. That the matter in dispute being a office of personal confidence and trust, and not a thing capable of being bought, sold, or assigned,-it was not a thing which had a 'value' within the act, which gave this court jurisdiction only when the matter in dispute was of the value of $1000 or more, and hence that the writ ought to be dismissed.
2d. That the two years-or term of office-for which Crawford was elected, would run out before the case brought up by the writ of error could be passed on.
The court, however, considered that the office having a salary, the case did present a subject of 'value,' and that salary being $1000, of the requisite value. As to the other matter they said:
'The bond and security given on the writ of error cannot be regarded as an idle ceremony. It was designed as an indemnity to the defendant in error, should the plaintiff fail to prosecute with effect his writ.'
The mandamus was accordingly refused, and the writ of error suffered to stand, Addison in the meantime enjoying the mayoralty.