Totten, Administrator v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Citation | 23 L.Ed. 605,92 U.S. 105 |
| Parties | TOTTEN, ADMINISTRATOR, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Mr. Enoch Totten for the appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Edwin B. Smith, contra.
This case comes before us on appeal from the Court of Claims. The action was brought to recover compensation for services alleged to have been rendered by the claimant's intestate, William A. Lloyd, under a contract with President Lincoln, made in July, 1861, by which he was to proceed South and ascertain the number of troops stationed at different points in the insurrectionary States, procure plans of forts and fortifications, and gain such other information as might be beneficial to the government of the United States, and report the facts to the President; for which services he was to be paid $200 a month.
The Court of Claims finds that Lloyd proceeded, under the contract, within the rebel lines, and remained there during the entire period of the war, collecting, and from time to time transmitting, information to the President; and that, upon the close of the war, he was only reimbursed his expenses. But the court, being equally divided in opinion as to the authority of the President to bind the United States by the contract in question, decided, for the purposes of an appeal, against the claim, and dismissed the petition.
We have no difficulty at to the authority of the President in the matter. He was undoubtedly authorized during the war, as commander-in-chief of the armies of the United States, to employ secret agents to enter the rebel lines and obtain information respecting the strength, resources, and movements of the enemy; and contracts to compensate such agents are so far binding upon the government as to render it lawful for the President to direct payment of the amount stipulated out of the contingent fund under his control. Our objection is not to the contract, but to the action upon it in the Court of Claims. The service stipulated by the contract was a secret service; the information sought was to be obtained clandestinely, and was to be communicated privately; the employment and the service were to be equally concealed. Both employer and agent must have understood that the lips of the other were to be for ever sealed respecting the relation of either to the matter. This condition of the engagement was implied from the nature of the employment, and is implied in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stillman v. Department of Defense, Civ. No. 01-1342 (EGS) [23-1] (D. D.C. 6/7/2002)
...389 U.S. 258, 267, 88 S.Ct. 419 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10, 73 S.Ct. 528 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 105, 106, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1876). The speech interests asserted by plaintiff here are equally fundamental. "The maintenance of the opportunity for f......
-
Sigler v. LeVan
...defendants contend, involves classified information and is protected by the state secrets privilege. In Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an action on the ground that the suit could not be litigated without revealing gover......
-
Stillman v. Department of Defense
...419, 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 105, 106, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1875). The speech interests asserted by plaintiff here are equally fundamental. "The maintenance of the opportunity for......
-
Webster v. Doe
...See, e.g., Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 526-530, 108 S.Ct. 818, 824, 98 L.Ed.2d 918 (1988); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. (2 Otto) 105, 23 L.Ed. 605 (1876). Section 102(c) plainly indicates that Congress has done exactly that, and the Court points to nothing in the structure......
-
Human Rights Boon or Time Bomb: The Alien Tort Statute and the Need for Congressional Action
...necessary,” and a court 100 Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)). See also Jessica Slattery Karich, Restoring Balance to Checks and Balances: Checking t......
-
Privileges
..., 263 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1958). The court recognized the priest-penitent privilege as a matter of common law. Totten v. United States , 92 U.S. 105 (1876) (dictum) “It may be stated as a general principle, that public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the tr......
-
Privileges
..., 263 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1958). The court recognized the priest-penitent privilege as a matter of common law. Totten v. United States , 92 U.S. 105 (1876) (dictum) “It may be stated as a general principle, that public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the tr......
-
Specific Privileges
..., 263 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1958). The court recognized the priest-penitent privilege as a matter of common law. Totten v. United States , 92 U.S. 105 (1876) (dictum) “It may be stated as a general principle, that public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the tr......