Mary Reeside, Executrix of James Reeside, Plaintiff In Error v. Robert Walker, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WOODBURY
• Citation: 13 L.Ed. 693,11 How. 272,52 U.S. 272
• Parties: MARY REESIDE, EXECUTRIX OF JAMES REESIDE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ROBERT J. WALKER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES
• Decision Date: 01 December 1850

52 U.S. 272 11 How. 272 13 L.Ed. 693 MARY REESIDE, EXECUTRIX OF JAMES REESIDE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ROBERT J. WALKER, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. December Term, 1850

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

James Reeside, in his lifetime, was one of the contractors with the Post-Office Department for the transportation of the mail, and claimed sundry extra allowances, which were not allowed

Page 273

by the Department. In consequence, thereof, a dispute arose between the parties, and in October, 1839, the United States brought an action in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Reeside, for the sum of $32,709.62, which they claimed to have overpaid him.

The whole history of this suit is summed up in the following transcript of the record:——

'In the Circuit Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the Third Circuit, October Session, 1839.

'THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES REESIDE.

'Summons case.—Real debt $32,709.62, as per statement of account from Auditor Post-Office Department, as late mail contractor. Exit 5th Sept. 1837.

'1837, Oct. 11.—Returned, 'Served.'

'1840, January 25.—Interrogatories filed and ruled for comm'n e. p. defendant to Bedford, Pennsylvania, sec. reg.

'1840, February 4.—Rule on plaintiffs to declare, sec. reg.; 18 interrogatories filed and rule for comm'n e. p. defendants to Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, sec. reg.

'1840, March 2.—Narr. filed; 6th, defendant pleads payment; replication non solvit, and issues and rule for trial by special jury and ca.

'1841, March 2.—Agreement for taking the deposition of Richard M. Johnson, a witness for defendant at the city of Washington, on forty-eight hours' notice to the Auditor Post-Office Department, filed.

'1841, August 4.—Agreement taking deposition of R. M. Johnson, at Frankfort, Kentucky; and interrogatories filed; deposition of R. M. Johnson filed.

'1841, October 22.—Defendant pleads non assumpsit and set-off and issues and ca.; and now [a] jury being called, come, to wit, Edward C. Biddle, S. M. Loyd, Thomas Connell, George McLeod, Michael F. Groves, John C. Martin, William C. Hancock, Joseph Harrison, Jr., Joseph Parker, William Parker, William Gibson, and Thomas Cook, who are respectively sworn or affirmed, &c.; deposition of Pishey Thompson filed.

'1841, December 6.—And now the jurors aforesaid, on their oaths and affirmations aforesaid, respectively do say, that they find for the defendant, and certify that the plaintiffs are indebted to the defendant in the sum of $188,496.06; judgment nisi. On motion of Messrs. Read & Cadwallader, for plaintiffs, for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, and for leave to move for such new trial, on exceptions to the ruling of the court on questions of evidence and matters of

Page 274

law, embraced in the charge of the court, without such motion being deemed a waiver thereof, the motion is received; notice thereof to be given to the opposite counsel; returnable 1st Monday in January next.

'1841, December 9.—Reasons for a new trial filed.

'1842, May 12.—Motion for new trial overruled; new trial refused, and judgment on the verdict; copy of assignment, James Reeside to John Grey; and copy of notice, James Reeside to Postmaster-General, filed.

'1842, July 27.—Praecipe for writ of error filed.

'UNITED STATES, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sct.

'I certify the foregoing to be a true and faithful transcript of the docket entries in the above-named suit.

'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of said court at Philadelphia, this 4th day of January, A. D. 1847, and in the seventy-first year of the independence of the said United States.

'GEORGE PLITT.'

In September, 1842, James Reeside died, and Mary Reeside, his widow, became his executrix.

On the 4th of November, 1848, Mary Reeside filed a petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, in and for county of Washington. The petition stated the above facts, and with it was filed the transcript of the record as it has been set forth. It concluded as follows:——

'Wherefore, your petitioner does respectfully pray, that your honors, the premises considered, will award the United States writ of mandamus to be directed to the said Robert J. Walker, Secretary of the Treasury Department of the United States, commanding him,——

'First. That he shall enter or cause to be entered upon the books of the Treasury Department of the United States, under date of May 12th, 1842, a credit to the said James Reeside of the sum of $188,496.06.

'Second. That he shall pay to your petitioner, as executrix as aforesaid, the said sum, with interest thereon from the said 12th day of May, 1842.

'And your petitioner shall ever pray, &c.

'MARY REESIDE.'

The Circuit Court ordered that the motion for a mandamus be overruled, and the prayer of the petitioner rejected. Whereupon Mary Reeside sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.

Page 275

It was argued by Mr. Goodrich, for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Crittenden (Attorney-General), for the defendant in error.

Mr. Goodrich, for the plaintiff in error, made the following points.

The application for relief, in the court below, was of double aspect. First, that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to enter to the credit of James Reeside, under proper date, upon the books of the Treasury Department, the amount of the verdict and judgment aforesaid. Second, that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to pay the amount of such credit, with interest thereon, to the complainant.

Is the plaintiff in error entitled to the relief sought, or any part thereof? It may be urged, that the United States cannot be sued. As a general proposition, it may be admitted. It is equally true that the United States may be sued with its own consent. United States v. McLemore, 4 Howard, 288; Hill v. United States, 9 Howard, 389. Its officers, in their representative capacity, may be sued with consent of the government. The right of the citizen against the government may be judicially ascertained, if the legislative department so provide; and such adjudication, rightfully had, must be conclusive, unless express provision to the contrary is made. The judiciary may be authorized to determine the right, to pass a judgment or decree which shall bind the government, and may not have authority to issue execution against the government or its property. It is equally true that it is the duty of every government, especially of the United States, to provide some mode for the ascertainment and liquidation of the claims of the citizen against the government. The mode adopted in England and in this country, in many cases, is by authorizing a resort to the judiciary; sometimes such resort is permitted in the first instance, but generally after an unsuccessful application to some department or commission. Wherever the United States have authorized recourse to the judiciary, and the right has been contested or settled by the judiciary in the mode prescribed, such judicial action upon the right—I speak not of the remedy—must be in its nature conclusive and final. Whenever and wherever a judicial tribunal is authorized to pass upon any matter or right, and it does pass upon it, it must be regarded res adjudicata, subject only to be reversed on error. The United States, in harmony with its duty, has, in many instances, authorized the judiciary to determine controverted questions between the citizen and the government. Some of those cases are submitted, for the purpose of analogy, and for the deductions which they afford in aid of the construction,

Page 276

which will be relied upon, of the statutes which must control the present case.

4 Stat. at Large, 284, May 23, 1828, ch. 70, § 6. In which provision is made, that private land claims in Florida, not finally settled by the commissioners, may be decided by the judge of the Superior Court for the district within which the lands are, provided the claims shall have been previously presented for allowance to the commissioner, register, or receiver. Sect. 7 provides an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sect. 13, that the decisions shall be final between the United States and the claimant. Under this statute, an appeal in one case was taken to this court, but dismissed, because the original application was not made within the time prescribed. United States v. Marvin, 3 Howard, 620. The power of the court to pass a valid decree upon a proper application was not doubted.

3 Stat. at Large, 691, May 7, 1822, ch. 96. An act to empower the city of Washington to drain the public grounds. In sect. 6 it is provided, that the proprietors may institute a bill in equity in the nature of a petition of right, against the United States, in the Circuit Court. Sect. 8, suits to be conducted according to the rules of courts of equity. Sect. 9, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court, and if no appeal, the judgment of Circuit Court to be final. Van Ness v. City of Washington and United States, 4 Peters, 232, is a case under this statute. On page 266, Mr. Taney, arguendo, says: 'It submits their rights to judicial decision. In submitting to such a trial and decision they (the government) place themselves on the ground of contract, and waive any rights their sovereignty might give. For it would be absurd, indeed, to suppose that the United States gave to the court the mere power of hearing a cause, when that hearing could produce no judicial result.' The court, Mr. Justice Story giving the opinion, say: 'It is not necessary to consider whether the bill is so framed as to enable the court to pass a definitive decree against...