Truk v Robi [1988] SPLawRp 33; [1988] SPLR 63 (1 February 1988)

SOUTH PACIFIC LAW REPORTS

[1988] SPLR 63

Federated States of Micronesia

Truk v. Robi

State Court, Appellate Division (Truk)
Fritz CJ; Welle and Marar A.J.J.
1 February 1988

Attorney-General - statutory authority - power to settle proceedings without consent of the Governor - compromise and settlement of civil action.

The appellee brought an action against Truk State alleging negligence resulting in the wrongful death of her new-born infant in Truk State Hospital. The allegations were denied but, prior to trial, a court-approved settlement was agreed between her and the late Acting Attorney-General whereby liability was not admitted by the State, but judgment was entered for $17,000 in favour of the appellee. This sum was not paid, and eventually proceedings were issued to enforce the judgment. The current Attorney-General sought to have the judgment set aside on the ground that the previous Attorney-General involved in the litigation had no authority to settle an action brought against the State without the consent of the Governor. Her motions were denied by the trial judge.

HELD:

The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

(1) The discretionary authority vested in the office of Attorney-General empowers settlement of both criminal and civil litigation under the Attorney-General's supervision and control.
(2) The statutory duties of the Attorney-General provide for a general grant of authority to represent the Government and to conduct and control proceedings on behalf of the Government. The law does not limit that authority by requiring the Governor's consent to the settlement of civil litigation, and this Court will not read into the statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself.
(3) A valid compromise is final and conclusive and finding upon the parties including the successors in office to the Attorney-General. The current Attorney-General has inherited, for better or for worse, the final decrees issued in cases handled by previous incumbents.

Other cases referred to in judgment:
Allen v. Commissioner of Corp. and Taxn 172 N.E. 643 70 ALR 1299 (Mass. 1930)
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P. 2d. 912 (Ariz. 1960)
Aviation Corp. v. U.S. 46 F. Supp. 491, (Ct. Cl. 1942) cert. den. 318 U.S. 771, 87 L. Ed. 1141
Denn v. Reid 35 U.S. 534, 9 L. Ed. 519 (1836)
Ex parte Young 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908)
Ford v. Young 170 P. 948 (Mont. 1918)
Huffman v. Oklahoma Coco-Cola Bottling Co. 281 P. 2d. 436 (Okla. 1955)
Kiler v. Wohletz 101 P. 474 (Kan. 1909)
Kohelbeck v. Handle 415 P 2d. 483, 21 ALR 3d. 1248 (Ariz. 1966)
Leonard v. U.S. Postal Services 489 F 2d. 814 (1st. Cir. 1974)
Nix v. Ehmes 1 FSM Intrm. 114 (Pon. 1982)
Nolan v. District Court 55 P. 916 (Mont. 1899)
Olsen v. Public Service Comm. 283 P. 2