Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Vigo's Case, 88 U.S. 648 (1875)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Congress passed an act referring the claim of Francis Vigo's heirs to the Court of Claims to adjust and settle, giving the court full jurisdiction and removing the statute of limitations. 2) The Court of Claims rendered a $49,898 judgment against the United States, but refused to allow an appeal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had a right to appeal adverse Court of Claims judgments under the general law, and that Congress intended the Court of Claims to have judicial jurisdiction over this claim, so a peremptory mandamus was ordered directing the Court of Claims to allow the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vigo's Case, 88 U.S. 648 (1875)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views4 pages
    1) Congress passed an act referring the claim of Francis Vigo's heirs to the Court of Claims to adjust and settle, giving the court full jurisdiction and removing the statute of limitations. 2) The Court of Claims rendered a $49,898 judgment against the United States, but refused to allow an appeal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had a right to appeal adverse Court of Claims judgments under the general law, and that Congress intended the Court of Claims to have judicial jurisdiction over this claim, so a peremptory mandamus was ordered directing the Court of Claims to allow the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1875-05-18 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 88 U.S. 648, 21 Wall. 648

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Congress passed an act referring the claim of Francis Vigo's heirs to the Court of Claims to adjust and settle, giving the court full jurisdiction and removing the statute of limitations. 2) The Court of Claims rendered a $49,898 judgment against the United States, but refused to allow an appeal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had a right to appeal adverse Court of Claims judgments under the general law, and that Congress intended the Court of Claims to have judicial jurisdiction over this claim, so a peremptory mandamus was ordered directing the Court of Claims to allow the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    14 views4 pages

    Vigo's Case, 88 U.S. 648 (1875)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Congress passed an act referring the claim of Francis Vigo's heirs to the Court of Claims to adjust and settle, giving the court full jurisdiction and removing the statute of limitations. 2) The Court of Claims rendered a $49,898 judgment against the United States, but refused to allow an appeal. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the United States had a right to appeal adverse Court of Claims judgments under the general law, and that Congress intended the Court of Claims to have judicial jurisdiction over this claim, so a peremptory mandamus was ordered directing the Court of Claims to allow the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as court, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    88 U.S.

    648
    22 L.Ed. 690
    21 Wall. 648

    VIGO'S CASE: EX PARTE UNITED STATES.


    October Term, 1874

    SUR petition for mandamus.


    On the 8th of June, 1872, Congress passed the following act:
    'An act referring the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of
    Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, to the Court of Claims for adjustment.
    'Be it enacted, &c., That the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of
    Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, late of Terre Haute, Indiana, for money
    and supplies furnished the troops under command of General George
    Rogers Clarke, in the year 1778, during the Revolutionary war, be, and
    the same is hereby, referred, along with all the papers and official
    documents belonging thereto, to the Court of Claims, with full jurisdiction
    to adjust and settle the same; and, in making such adjustment and
    settlement, the said court shall be governed by the rules and regulations
    heretofore adopted by the United States in the settlement of like cases,
    giving consideration to official acts, if any have heretofore been had in
    connection with this claim, and without regard to the statutes of
    limitations.'
    On the 31st October, 1873, the heirs of Colonel Vigo filed in the Court of
    Claims their petition against the United States, under the authority of this
    act, and with their petition filed 'the papers and official documents
    belonging' to the claim. Judgment was rendered in the action on the 18th
    January, 1875, against the United States for $49,898. From this judgment
    the United States asked the Court of Claims for the allowance of an appeal
    to this court, which was refused. The present application was for a
    mandamus from this court directing the judges of that to allow the appeal.
    Mr. J. S. Blair, for the United States (with whom were Mr. G. H.
    Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. John Goforth, Assistant AttorneyGeneral), cited Meade v. United States,1 to show that if, as the other side
    of necessity assumed, the Court of Claims was authorized to enter a

    judgment which was to be paid out of the appropriations for the judgments
    of the said court, then the United States was entitled to an appeal and reexamination of the whole case.
    Mr. William Penn Clarke, contra , relied on Ex parte Atocha,2 which case,
    as he contended, showed that where jurisdiction was given to the Court of
    Claims by special actas herethe authority of this court to review its
    action was limited and controlled by the provisions of the act; arguing, in
    addition, that the provisions of the present act did not provide for an
    appeal.
    The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

    The Court of Claims, by the terms of the act under which it is organized, has
    jurisdiction, among other things, to hear and determine all claims which may be
    referred to it by either House of Congress.3 All petitions and bills praying or
    providing for the satisfaction of private claims founded upon any law of
    Congress, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government, are
    required to be transmitted, with all the accompanying documents, to the Court
    of Claims, by the secretary of the Senate or the clerk of the House of
    Representatives, unless otherwise ordered by a resolution of the House in which
    they are introduced.4 In all cases of final judgments by the Court of Claims, the
    sum due thereby is to be paid out of any general appropriation made by law for
    the payment and satisfaction of private claims, on presentation to the Secretary
    of the Treasury of a copy of the judgment.5 By the act of June 25th, 1868,6 in
    force when the proceedings in the Court of Claims were commenced in this
    case, it was provided that an appeal should be allowed on behalf of the United
    States 'from all final judgments of the said Court of Claims adverse to the
    United States, whether the said judgment shall have been rendered by virtue of
    the general or special power or jurisdiction of said court.' This act is
    substantially re-enacted in section seven hundred and seven of the Revised
    Statutes, and, as we think, gives to the United States the right of appeal from
    the adverse judgment of the Court of Claims in all cases where that court is
    required by any general or special law to take jurisdiction of a claim made
    against the United States and act judicially in its determination.

    Upon an examination of the act of Congress under which the court took
    jurisdiction in this case, we find that the claim, 'along with all the papers and
    official documents belonging thereto,' was referred to the court 'with full
    jurisdiction to adjust and settle the same.' It is a fact of some significance that
    the word 'referred' is here employed, inasmuch as that is the word used in the

    act defining the general jurisdiction of the court in respect to claims transmitted
    by either House of Congress.
    3

    It also appears that the bar of the statute of limitations applicable to that court is
    removed in this case and that in some respects the rules of evidence are relaxed.
    All this would have been unnecessary if the court was not to be governed by the
    general laws regulating its practice and jurisdiction except so far as they might
    be modified to meet the necessities of this special case. So, too, we find that no
    provision is made for the payment of any judgment that might be rendered or
    for any report from the court to Congress, although it must have been expected
    that a judgment against the United States was at least possible. Such an
    omission would hardly have occurred if it had not been supposed that provision
    for payment had already been made in the general law regulating the payment
    of all judgments of that court.

    From all this we think it manifest that Congress intended to refer this claim to
    the court for judicial determination and to confer special power and jurisdiction
    for that purpose. Such being the case the right of appeal necessarily follows.

    Atocha's case is materially different from this. In that, the claim of Atocha was
    against Mexico, and the obligation of the United States for its payment grew
    out of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. By that treaty the United States
    exonerated Mexico from all demands of their citizens, which had previously
    arisen and had not been decided against that government, and engaged to satisfy
    them to an amount not exceeding $3,250,000. They also stipulated for the
    establishment of a board of commissioners to ascertain the validity and amount
    of the claims, and provided that its awards should be final. On the 14th of
    February, 1865, Congress passed a special act for the relief of Atocha, and in it
    directed the Court of Claims to examine into his claim, and if found to be just
    and within the treaty, to fix and determine its amount. The act also directed that
    the amount adjudicated and determined by that court should be paid out of any
    money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, but the amount to be paid
    was in no event to exceed the balance of the moneys provided in the treaty for
    the payment of such claims which remained unapplied to that object. The Court
    of Claims was of the opinion 'that it was the intention of Congress that the
    court should proceed, not as a court in trying an action against the United
    States, but as a commission similar to that provided by the treaty.' And this
    court construed the act as referring the matter 'to the court to ascertain a
    particular fact to guide the government in the execution of its treaty
    stipulations,' and held that 'as no mode was provided for a review of its action,
    it must be taken and regarded as final.'

    We think that the return of the judges of the Court of Claims to the alternative
    writ in this case is not sufficient, and a

    PEREMPTORY MANDAMUS IS ORDERED.

    9 Wallace, 691.

    17 Id. 439.

    10 Stat. at Large, 612; Revised Statutes, 1059.

    12 Stat. at Large, 765; Revised Statutes, 1060.

    12 Stat. at Large, 766; Revised Statutes, 1089.

    15 Stat. at Large, 75.

    You might also like