Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/923

 IN EB AH teE. 911 �court de facto, although, upon a quo warrante, he might be removed from the office to which he had not been legally and constitutionally appointed, and his ofiScial acts while he was Buch judge de facto would be valid as to third persons, so that this court, upon a writ of error brought for the purpose of reversing a jûdgment pronounced by him as such judge i« facto of that court, wonld not be authorized to inquife as to the validity of his appoîhttnent. The resuit would be the same when his appointment had been made with the consent of the senate, in case he was constitutionally ineligible in con- sequence of his being a minister of the gospel." �To the same effect are the cases of People v. CoUins, 7 John. 5e9 ; McJnstry v. Tanner, 9 John. 135. In the latter, a person in the office of justice of the peace was held to be an ofacer de facto, although he was a minister of the gospel, and therefore constitutionally ineligible. �In MaUet v. Uncle Sam,' etc., 1 Nev. 188 j it was held that a person acting as justice of the peace under an appointment by selectmen, who had no authority to make such appointa ment, and a commission from the governor, who was author- ized to issue commissions to such officers, was a justice de facto. �In February, 1812, the legislature of Massachusetts created the county of Hampden, and provided that the act should not take effect until August. In the meantime the governor of the state assumed to appoint the officers for the new countyj as he was authorized to do after the law took effect. The matter came before the court, and it was held that the ap- pointments were void as being made without law, but that the appointees, while in office, were officers de facto, and theit acts valid. See Fowler V. Beleu, 9 Mass. 231 ; Commonwealth V. Fowler, 10 Mass. 290. ^ �In Plymouth v. Painter, 71 Conn. 587, it was held that "an officer de facto is one 'who executes the duties of an office nnder color of an appointment or election to that office. He differs on the one hand from a mere usurper of an office, who undertakes to act as aii officer withôut any color of right, and ����