KEYES
v.
THE UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1883-11-26
Mr. Justice Field did not sit in. this case or take part-in its decision.
109 U.S. 336 Supreme Court of the United States (1883) Caution
Also reported at: 27 L. Ed. 954 · 3 S. Ct. 202 · 1883 U.S. LEXIS 975 · SCDB 1883-053
Cited by 26 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A former Army officer challenged his dismissal after being superseded in his commission and subsequently court-martialed, arguing the court-martial lacked jurisdiction and was void because a judge also served as prosecutor and witness. The Supreme Court held that where a general court-martial has proper jurisdiction over the charges and person, irregularities in proceedings cannot be challenged collaterally, and the President retains power to supersede military officers through appointment with Senate consent independent of statutory restrictions on dismissal.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice BlatchRord

Mr. Justice BlatchRord delivered the opinion of the court.

He recited the facts in. the language used above, and then said:

So far as regards the time after June 15th, 1877, the fact that Goldman was appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, a second lieutenant in the 5th cavalry, in the place of the appellant, from June 15th 1877, and was commissioned as such, and accepted and held the appointment, is a bar to the suit of the appellant. It was held by this court, in Blake v. United States, 103 U. S. 227, that the president has the power to supersede or remove an officer of the army by the appointment of another in his place, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and that such power was not withdrawm by the provision of § 5 of the act of July 13th, 1866, c. 176, 11 Stat. 92, now embodied in § 1229 of the Revised Statutes, that “ no officer in the military or naval service shall, in time of peace, be dismissed from -service, except upon and in pursuance of the sentence of a court-martial to that effect, or in commutation thereof.” It was held that this provision did not restrict the power of the president, by and with the' advice and consent of the senate, to displace officers of the army or navy, by the appointment of others in their places.

In regard to the rest of the time covered by the suit, it be comes necessary to decide the question raised as to the validity of the sentence of the court-martial. It is contended for the appellant that the court-martial had no jurisdiction to try him; that the fact that he made no objection to any member of the court was not a consent upon his part which conferred jurisdiction on the court-martial; and that the fact that Colonel Merritt was prosecutor, witness and judge rendered the proceedings of the court-martial void. The position is taken that, although there is no statute or regulation which forbids what was done in this case, the sentence of a court-martial in which one of the judges is prosecutor and witness is absolutely void, and that neither what the appellant said nor Avhat he omitted to say, at the time, can cure the defect in the organization of the court.

That the court-martial, as a general court-martial, had cognizance of the charges made, and had jurisdiction of the person of the appellant, is not disputed. This being so, whatever irregularities or errors are alleged to have occurred in the proceedings, the sentence.of dismissal must be held valid when it is questioned in this collateral way. Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Peters, 157; Voorhees v. Bank of United States, 10 id. 449; Cornett v. Williams, 20 Wallace, 226, 249. This doctrine has been applied by this court to the judgment and sentence of a naval general court-martial, which was sought to be reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13.

Where there is no laAV authorizing the court-martial, or where the statutory -conditions as to the constitution or jurisdiction of the court are not observed, there is. no tribunal authorized by laAV to render the judgment. Of that character are the authorities cited and relied on by the appellant; but they do not apply to the present case.

Under the, foregoing Adeivs, Ave express no opinion as to the propriety of'the proceedings of the court-martial in the respects in which they are assailed.

The judgment. of the court of claims is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Field did not sit in. this case or take part-in its decision.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1969)
    …ief in the civilian courts of the Federal judiciary.” 4 Prior to the enactment of Article 76, the Court of Claims had entertained suits for back pay brought by servicemen who had been convicted by courts-martial. See, e. g., Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 336; Runkle v. United States, 122 U. S. 543; Swaim v. United States, 165 U. S. 553; United States v. Brown, 206 U. S. 240. These decisions, it is argued, were based on the theory that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over back-pay suits where the co…
  • In re Tyler, 149 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1893)
  • Smith v. Whitney & Others, 116 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1886)
    …e scope of its jurisdiction and duty, cannot be controlled or reviewed in the civil courts, by writ of prohibition or otherwise. Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, 82, 83; Ex parte Reed, 100 U. S. 13; Ex parte Mason, 105 U. S. 696; Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 336; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 570; Kurtz v. Moffit, 115 U. S. 487, 500. See also Wise v. Withers, 3 Cranch, 331; Meade v. Deputy Marshal of Virginia, 1 Brock. 324; In re Bogart, 2 Sawyer, 396; In re White, 9 Sawyer, 49 Barrett v. Hopkins, 2 McCr…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw