Griffith v. Rudolph

Decision Date05 May 1924
Docket Number4066.
PartiesGRIFFITH v. RUDOLPH et al., Commissioners of the District of Columbia.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Submitted April 8, 1924.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

W Gwynn Gardiner and J. William Tomlinson, both of Washington D.C., for appellant.

Francis H. Stephens and Ringgold Hart, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices, and MARTIN Presiding Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

ROBB Associate Justice.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the commissioners of the District of Columbia to vacate an order removing the petitioner as superintendent of insurance. The material facts made by the petition and answer are substantially as follows On June 4, 1919, petitioner was appointed superintendent of insurance of the District by the commissioners, at an annual salary of $3,500, as provided in section 645 of the District Code. On June 21, 1922, without having been served with notice of any charges preferred against him, and without opportunity to be heard, petitioner was removed. On the 29th of June following he filed the petition herein, which was dismissed in the court below, and the case brought here.

Appellant contends that, under the provisions of the Act of May 22, 1920 (41 Stat. 614 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Secs. 3287 1/2-3287 1/2ss)), entitled 'An act for the retirement of employees in the classified civil service, and for other purposes,' he was brought within the protection of section 6 of the Act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555 (Comp. St. Sec. 3287)), in part as follows:

'That no person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed therefrom except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service and for reasons given in writing, and the person whose removal is sought shall have notice of the same and of any charges preferred against him, and be furnished with a copy thereof, and also be allowed a reasonable time for personally answering the same in writing, and affidavits in support thereof.'

The specific provision in the act of 1920, upon which appellant relies, reads as follows:

'All regular annual employees of the municipal government of the District of Columbia, appointed directly by the commissioners, or by other competent authority including those receiving per diem compensation paid out of general appropriations, but whose services are continuous, and including public school employees, excepting school officers and teachers, shall be included in the provisions of this act, but members of the police and fire departments shall be excluded therefrom. ' Section 1 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 3287 1/2aa).

Section 8 of this act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 3287 1/2ll) provides for monthly deductions of 2 1/2 per centum from the basic salary, pay, or compensation of each employee to whom the act applies, and requires the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer such amounts on the books of the Treasury Department to the credit of a special fund, to be known as 'the civil service retirement and disability fund,' which fund, the section further provides, 'is hereby appropriated for the payment of annuities, refunds, and allowances as provided in this act. ' This fund is required to be invested in interest-bearing securities.

Section 9 of the act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 3287 1/2n) provides that every employee coming within its provisions shall be deemed to consent and agree to such deductions--

'and payment less such deductions shall be a full and complete discharge and acquittance of all claims and demands whatsoever for all regular services rendered by such employee during the period covered by such payment.'

Under section 11 of the act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 3287 1/2o), in the event of the separation from the service of any employee to whom the act applies, before becoming eligible for retirement on an annuity:

'The total amount of deductions of salary, pay, or compensation with accrued interest computed at the rate of 4 per centum per annum, compounded on June 30 of each fiscal year, shall, upon application, be returned to such employee.'

Officers and employees of the District of Columbia are not officers and employees of the general government of the United States and therefore are not brought within the civil service of the United States (opinion of Attorney General, April 28, 1898, 22 Op.Attys.Gen. 59), unless brought within it by the act of 1920. That act provided for the retirement of employees in the classified civil service of the United States. It was recognized that employees of the District of Columbia, not being in the classified civil service, would not be entitled to the benefits of this act unless expressly brought within its scope. That could have been effected either by extending to these municipal employees all the rights and privileges...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 1 Julio 1974
    ...paid . . . but are retained by the government as general public funds in which the employees can have no right citation to Pennie, Griffith v. Rudolph, infra, MacLeod v. Fernandez, supra; Dodge v. Board, supra; In re Goodwin, 24 Stouper v. Jones, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 284 F.2d 240, 242-243 ......
  • Talbott v. Independent School Dist. of Des Moines
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 1941
    ...(adverse legislation after retirement), Beutel v. Foreman, 288 Ill. 106, 123 N.E. 270, (adverse legislation after retirement), Griffith v. Rudolph, 298 F. 672, 36 App.Cas.Dist. Col. 379, Eddy v. Morgan, 216 Ill. 437, 75 N.E. 174; Kern v. State ex rel., 212 Ind. 611, 10 N.E.2d 915; 54 A.L.R.......
  • Anderson v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 27 Julio 1953
    ...general public funds in which the employees can have no right. Pennie v. Reis, 132 U.S. 464, 10 S.Ct. 149, 33 L.Ed. 426; Griffith v. Rudolph, 54 App.D.C. 350, 298 F. 672; MacLeod v. Fernandez, 1 Cir., 101 F.2d 20, certiorari denied Toste v. Macleod, 308 U.S. 561, 60 S.Ct. 72, 84 L.Ed. 471; ......
  • Dillon v. Wentz
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 31 Enero 1947
    ... ... v. Eelman, 116 N.J.L. 279, 183 A ... 677; Retirement Board of Allegheny County v. McGovern; 316 ... Pa. 161, 174 A. 400; Griffith v. Rudolph, 54 ... App.D.C. 350, 298 F. 672 ...           The ... question as to whether or not the assets of this Association ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT