When an act of Congress directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
pay a specified sum to a person named for a specific purpose, no
discretion is vested in the Secretary or in any court to inquire
whether the person named is entitled to receive that sum for that
object.
United States v. Jordan, 113 U.
S. 418, affirmed.
The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit brought to recover back a sum of money collected
by Bem Price from the United States on a claim "for property and
supplies taken . . . for the use of the armies of the United States
during the war of the rebellion," allowed by the commissioners of
claims under the Act of March 3, 1871, 16 Stat. 524, c. 116, § 2,
on the ground that
"said sum of money was paid to defendant under act of Congress,
approved March 3, 1875, as heir and legatee of his deceased
father's estate, and in mistake that the said sum was due him as
only heir and legatee of decedent, when in truth and in fact the
property and supplies so taken . . . belonged jointly to defendant
and his two brothers,"
"when in truth and in fact the defendant and his said brothers
were disloyal to the government during the war of the rebellion,
and not entitled under the law to recover said sum of money, or any
part thereof."
The Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 637, 646; Private Laws, c.
205, is as follows:
"
Be it enacted, &c., that the Secretary of the
Treasury be,
Page 116 U. S. 44
and he is hereby, authorized and required to pay, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the several
persons in this act named, the several sums mentioned therein, the
same being in full for, and the receipt of the same to be taken and
accepted in each case as a full and final discharge of, the several
claims presented by such persons to the commissioners of claims
under the Act of March 3, 1871, and reported to the House of
Representatives under the said act, that is to say, . . . Bem
Price, six thousand three hundred and six dollars. . . ."
The district court gave judgment for the defendant. To reverse
that judgment this writ of error was brought.
We are unable to distinguish this case in principle from that of
United States v. Jordan, 113 U. S. 418, in
which it was held that when an act of Congress directed the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay to a certain person a specific sum
of money, the amount of taxes assessed upon and collected from him
contrary to the provisions of certain Treasury regulations,
"no discretion was vested in the Secretary or in any court to
determine whether the sum specified was or was not the amount of
tax assessed contrary to the provisions of such regulations,"
and that consequently the payment must be made whether the
amount stated by Congress was the true amount collected or not. The
Court of Claims had held that the language of the act,
"taken together, was too clear to admit of doubt that Congress
undertook, as it had the right to do, to determine not only what
particular citizens of Tennessee by name should have relief, but
also the exact amount which should be paid to each of them."
In this we fully concurred.
The act now under consideration "required" the Secretary of the
Treasury to pay Price the money he got. It was when the payment was
made, and is now, the law of the land that he was entitled to that
sum from the United States on account of his claim. The Secretary
of the Treasury could not refuse to pay it, and no authority has
been given anyone to sue to recover it back. It may be that
Congress required the payment to be made under a mistake, or that
the claim was not a just one, but until Congress abrogates the law
or directs suit
Page 116 U. S. 45
to be brought to recover back the money, the conclusive
presumption is that there was no mistake, and that Price is under
no obligation to pay back what he has received.
Judgment affirmed.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment