CLYDE
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Claims exceeded its authority by imposing a rule requiring claimants to exhaust administrative remedies within executive departments before filing claims in that court. The Court reversed the dismissal, finding that such a jurisdictional requirement could only be established by Congress, not by court rule, and that the statute creating the Court of Claims did not impose such a prerequisite condition on its jurisdiction.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
However useful and proper such a rule as that complained of by the appellant may have been prior to the enactmeut of the law passed June 25th, 1868,* which requires the Attorney-General to obtain from the proper department, and the department to furnish, such facts, circumstances, and evidence as it might be in possession of in relation to any claim prosecuted in the Court of Claims, we are of opinion that it was not competent for the Court of Claims to impose it as a condition of presenting a claim in that court. Instead of being a rule of practice, it was really an additional restriction to the exercise of jurisdiction by that court. It required the claimant to do what the acts giving the court jurisdiction did not require him to do before it would assume jurisdiction of his case.
The act of 1855, which created the court, declares that it shall “ hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed therein.” The rule adopted by the court required that the claimant should not only have such a claim as stated in the act, but should have first gone through the department which might have entertained it, before he would be permitted to prosecute in that court. This was establishing a jurisdictional requirement which Congress alone had the power to establish.
This judgment of dismissal is therefore reversed, and the record remitted With directions to proceed to a hearing on the second count.
*
15 Stat. at Large, 76.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1926)…rleans v. Paine, 147 U. S. 261; United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161; American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 262 U. S. 209. It may give to the individual the option of either an administrative or a legal remedy. Compare Clyde v. United States, 13 Wall. 38; Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397, 399. Or it may provide only a legal remedy. Compare Turner v. United States, 248 U. S. 354. Whenever the law provides a remedy enforceable in the courts according to the regular course of legal procedure…
-
United States v. Kaufman, 96 U.S. 567 (U.S. 1877)…that,' until impeached, it is binding, and that the affirmative of. the impeachment, is upon the government. . It is said, however, that the finding does not show that the government has refused payment of the allowance. In Clyde v. United States (13 Wall. 38), we held that a rule of the Court of Claims was void which required “ that, where the case was such as is ordinarily settled in an' executive department, the petition should show that application for its allowance had ' been.made to that department…
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…tive department under the Dockery Act. See Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 57 Ct. Cls. 284. For such a rule there is no support either in the legislation of Congress or in the decisions of this Court. Compare Clyde [*178] v. United States, 13 Wall 38. The Railway was entitled to judgment for the amount wrongly deducted by the Auditor. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. United States v. Shrewsbury, 23 Wall. 508; Railroad Company v. United States, 103 U. S. 703; Pray v. United States, 106 U. S.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence