Keyes v. United States

Decision Date26 November 1883
Citation27 L.Ed. 954,3 S.Ct. 202,109 U.S. 336
PartiesKEYES v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

The appellant brought a suit against the United States, in the court of claims, on the second of February, 1880, claiming to recover the sum of $4,236.36, for his pay as a second lieutenant in the fifth regiment of cavalry, in the army of the United States, from the twenty-eighth of April, 1877. That court dismissed his petition, on the following facts found by it: In February, 1877, the appellant was tried on four charges and specifications, before a general court-martial composed of 10 officers. One of them, Col. Merritt, was the colonel of the fifth cavalry. They were all present. The appellant being before the court, and the order appointing it being read, he was asked if he had any objection to any member of the court present, named in the order, to which he replied in the negative. The oaths were then administered to the members of the court in the presence of the appellant. The first three of the charges and specifications were preferred by the lieutenant colonel of the fifth cavalry and the fourth by Col. Merritt. The appellant was represented by counsel of his own selection. He pleaded not guilty. Col. Merritt was sworn as a witness on the part of the government, and gave testimony in support of the charge and specifications preferred by him, but gave no testimony in regard to the other charges and specifications. The day after the appellant pleaded not guilty, he withdrew, by leave of the court, his plea of not guilty of the second charge and its specifications, and entered a plea of guilty thereto. Col. Merritt continued to sit as a member of the court throughout the trial, and participated in rendering the final judgment. At the close of the evidence the appellant submitted, in writing, a statement of his defense, which was read to the court. It contained no objection or reference to the participation of Col. Merritt in the trial as a member of the court, or to his having been so sworn and examined as a witness on behalf of the government. The court found the appellant guilty of all the charges and specifications, and sentenced him to be dismissed from the service. The proceedings, findings, and sentence of the court were approved by the president of the United States, who ordered that the sentence should take effect on the twenty-eighth of April, 1877. On the twenty-seventh of June, 1877, the senate not being in ses- sion, the president appointed Henry J. Goldman to be a second lieutenant in the fifth regiment of cavalry, and on the fifteenth of October, 1877, he nominated Goldman to the senate for appointment as second lieutenant in said regiment, in the place of the appellant, dismissed, to date from June 15, 1877. The senate advised and consented to the appointment of Goldman, and he was accordingly commissioned and still holds the office of such second lieutenant.

James Coleman, for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 338-339 intentionally omitted] Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellee.

BLATCHFORD, J.

So far as regards the time after June 15, 1877, the fact that Goldman was appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, a second lieutenant in the fifth cavalry, in the place of the appellant, from June 15, 1877, and was commissioned as such, and accepted and held the appointment, is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State ex rel. Wehe v. Frazier
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1921
    ...or jurisdiction to interfere. Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, 325, 17 Sup. Ct. 880, 42 L. Ed. 185;Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 336-340, 3 Sup. Ct. 202, 27 L. Ed. 955;Blake v. United States, 103 U. S. 227-237, 26 L. Ed. 462;Sutherland v. Governor, 29 Mich. 320, 18 Am. Rep. 89;S......
  • Brown v. United States, Civ. A. No. 72-635.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 28, 1973
    ...in the court-martial in question, which jurisdiction was found to exist in Mason's particular case as well. Keyes v. United States, 109 U.S. 336, 3 S.Ct. 202, 27 L.Ed. 954 (1883), is the next important case, dealing as it does with the first review by the Supreme Court of what has become a ......
  • State ex rel. Wehe v. Frazier
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1921
    ... ... It is practically the universal rule. It is the ... rule announced and adhered to by the United States Supreme ...          The ... case holding otherwise are few and are not based ... Parsons ... v. United States, 167 U.S. 324, 42 L.Ed. 185, 17 S.Ct ... 880; Keyes v. United States, 109 U.S. 336-340, 27 ... L.Ed. 954-956, 3 S.Ct. 202; Blake v. United States, ... ...
  • United States v. Augenblick United States v. Juhl, 45
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1969
    ...had entertained suits for back pay brought by servicemen who had been convicted by courts- martial. See, e.g., Keyes v. United States, 109 U.S. 336, 3 S.Ct. 202, 27 L.Ed. 954; Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543, 7 S.Ct. 1141, 30 L.Ed. 1167; Swaim v. United States, 165 U.S. 553, 17 S.Ct. ......
  • 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