Eberlein v. United States, 12
| Decision Date | 07 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
| Citation | 42 S.Ct. 12,257 U.S. 82,66 L.Ed. 140 |
| Parties | EBERLEIN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. E. Russell, of New York City, and L. T. Michener, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Messrs. Assistant Attorney General Davis and Wm. D. Harris, of Dayton, Ohio, for the United States.
In this case the plaintiff, who was a United States storekeeper in the customs service at the port of New York, brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover from the United States the sum of $4,164.44, that being the salary of the office from the date of his removal therefrom to the date of his reinstatement. The Court of Claims decided against him. 53 Ct. Cl. 466. On May 9, 1910, he was suspended without pay pending an investigation of written charges preferred against him. He had a hearing upon his answer to the charges, and on May 26, 1910, was removed from office. The charges involved the acceptance of bribes in the matter of underweighing cargoes of sugar, and thereby defrauding the government. In May, 1912, the Attorney General reinvestigated claimant's record, and reported that in his judgment the charges were not sustained, and the surveyor of the port made a similar report. On December 3, 1912, the President of the United States by an executive order of that date, in pursuance of further investigation, directed the reinstatement of the plaintiff. On December 6, 1912, he was reinstated.
There can be no question, from the findings in this case, that the plaintiff had the benefit of a hearing according to the regulations then in force. The Court of Claims in its opinion stated that the subsequent investigation established his innocence of the charges made against him. But the things required by law and regulations were done, and the discretion of the authorized officers was exercised as required by law. It is settled that in such cases the action of executive officers is not subject to revision in the courts. Keim v. United States, 117 U. S. 290, 20 Sup. Ct. 574, 44 L. Ed. 774.
The order of the President could not have the effect of reinstating the plaintiff to the office from which he was removed. The power of appointment and removal was in the Secretary of the Treasury. It was within the power of Congress to confer this authority on the Secretary. Burnap v. United States, 252 U. S. 512, 40 Sup. Ct. 374, 64 L. Ed. 692.
The President's order, while reciting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jointrefugee Committee v. Grath National Council Offriendship v. Grath International Workers Order v. Grath
...no evidence or argument before it on the point.' Loyalty Review Board, Memorandum No. 2, March 9, 1948. 3. Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140; Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290, 20 S.Ct. 574, 44 L.Ed. 774. This is true, although reasons stated are alleged to......
-
Bailey v. Richardson
...78 L.Ed. 1494; Kellom v. United States, 1920. 55 Ct.Cl. 174; Eberlein v. United States, 1918, 53 Ct.Cl. 466, affirmed 1921, 257 U.S. 82, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140; Page v. Moffett, C.C.N.J.1898, 85 F. 35 Fish, Civil Service and the Patronage (N.Y.1905); Sageser, The First Two Decades of the......
-
Doe v. Hampton
...of Federal Employee Dismissals and Other Adverse Actions, 57 Corn.L.Rev. 178, 188-97 (1972). 12 See e. g., Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 84, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140 (1921) ("It is settled that in such cases the action of executive officers is not subject to revision in the court......
-
Lodge 1858, American Federation of Gov. Emp. v. Paine
...the administrative gamut. Any problem in this regard is left for resolution by the District Court. 105 See Eberlein v. United States, 257 U.S. 82, 84, 42 S.Ct. 12, 66 L.Ed. 140 (1921); Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 314 F.2d 247 (1962); Powell v. Brannan, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 18, 196......