Kennedy v. United States
Decision Date | 08 December 1944 |
Docket Number | No. 11120.,11120. |
Citation | 146 F.2d 26 |
Parties | KENNEDY v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Sam G. Croom, of Houston, Tex., for appellant.
Miles L. Moss, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON, WALLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Having previously qualified as eligible in an examination given by the United States Civil Service Commission, appellant, on or about February 28, 1942, received an appointment from the War Department to the position of junior instructor of shop mathematics of the Air Corps at Large, at a salary of $2,000 per annum, subject to a probationary period of six months. Appellant discharged his duties at Ellington Field, Texas, until on or about January 15, 1943, when he was summarily discharged.
Alleging that his discharge was contrary to the United States Civil Service Act and regulations passed thereunder in that no written charges were preferred against him and no hearing had, and that he had committed no act or acts, or omissions to warrant such discharge, and was ready, able, and willing to perform the duties of his position, appellant brought this suit, praying that the order of dismissal be declared void and of no effect and that appellee, through its proper agency, be required to reinstate him in his former position; that compensation for such position be resumed and paid to him; and that judgment be entered in his favor and against the defendant for the sum of $633.33, representing actual damages resulting from his unlawful discharge, and the further sum of $66.66 for each and every month until he was reinstated and compensation was resumed.
The Government moved to dismiss on the ground that the suit was brought under Title 28, Sec. 41, U.S.C.A., and that the court was without jurisdiction to grant the relief for the reason that Subsection 20 thereof expressly denied to the United States District Courts jurisdiction of cases brought to recover fees, salary, or compensation by officers of the United States; and for the further reason that said Section 41, of Title 28 U.S.C.A., made no provision for a suit against the United States for specific performance of a contract for personal service.
From a judgment sustaining the motion and dismissing the suit, appellant prosecutes this appeal.
In this court, appellant states:
"It is clear that the limitation to the jurisdiction of the United States District Courts under Section 41(20), Title 28 U. S.C.A., applies only to persons suing for fees, salary, and compensation who are `officers of the United States,' and, in the final analysis, the question now before this court resolves itself down to whether or not the appellant is an `officer of the United States.'"
In United States v. David Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505, 506, 31 L.Ed. 463, the Supreme Court said that Article 2, Section 2, of the Constitution, defines who are officers of the United States. The material part of that Article reads:
"He (the President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law or in the Heads of Departments."
In United States v. Mouat, supra, the court said:
In United States v. Hartwell, 73 U.S. 385, 6 Wall. 385, 393, 18 L.Ed. 830, appellant had been appointed by the Assistant Treasurer, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, a clerk in the Treasury Department at Boston, and the court held that he was an officer of the United States because appointed by the head of a department within the meaning of the constitutional provision. The court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Honulik v. Town of Greenwich
...Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990). 19. The Hartwell formulation has been invoked in myriad contexts. See, e.g., Kennedy v. United States, 146 F.2d 26, 28 (5th Cir.1944) (to determine whether case fell within statutory bar to actions brought by officers of United States to recover fees, ......
-
Jentry v. United States
...through the Army Transport Service." United States v. Hartwell, 73 U.S. 385, 393, 6 Wall. 385, 393, 18 L.Ed. 830; Kennedy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 146 F. 2d 26, 28; Oswald v. United States, 9 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 10, The exceptive allegations represent that during the period of libela......
-
Surowitz v. United States
...which creates an office. However, a number of cases have so held under similarly worded statutes of general import. Kennedy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 26; Callahan v. United States, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 281, 122 F.2d 216; Baskins v. United States, D.C.E.D.S. C.1940, 32 F.Supp. 51......
-
Jackson v. United States, Civ. A. No. C-175-54.
...1952, 199 F.2d 642; Hunter v. United States, 4 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 446; Love v. Royall, 8 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 5; Kennedy v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 26; Gordon v. United States, D.C.E.D.Ark., 1954, 126 F.Supp. The United States has cited, and relies upon, the last mentioned c......