United States Angarica De La Rua v. Bayard
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLATCHFORD |
| Citation | 32 L.Ed. 159,8 S.Ct. 1156,127 U.S. 251 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. ANGARICA DE LA RUA v. BAYARD, Secretary of State |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1888 |
F. R. Coudert and Edward K. Jones, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for defendant in error.
Page 252
BLATCHFORD, J.
In this case Lutzarda Angarica de la Rua, executrix of the estate of Joaquin Garcia de Angarica, deceased, presented a petition to the supreme court of the District of Columbia, praying for a writ of Mandamus to be issued to Thomas F. Bayard, secretary of state of the United States, to pay the petitioner the amount of the interest or income derived from a certain investment of money. The case was heard in the first instance by the general term of that court, which rendered a judgment on the 7th of December, 1885, dismissing the petition, with costs, on the gropund that mandamus was not the remedy applicable to the case stated in the petition. 4 Mackey, 310. The petitioner has brought a writ of error in the name of the United States, on her relation, to reverse that judgment. The following are the material the plaintiff ex debito justitioe to a writ commanding of February, 1871, an agreement was concluded between the United States and Spain, for the settlement of certain claims of citizens of the United States, (17 St. 839,) of which a copy is set forth in the margin.1
Page 253
Pursuant to the agreement, the arbitrators and the umpire were appointed, and a commission thus composed, generally
Page 254
known as the 'Spanish-American Claims Commission,' was established. Angarica filed a claim before the commission, and it decided that he had a right to recover damages to the amount of $748,180, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum thereon from November 1, 1875, to the day of payment. The full amount of the award was paid to the secretary of state of the United States in two installments, namely, March 27, 1877, $406,894.96, and October 8, 1877, $415,699.75, making a total of $822,594.71. The whole amount was paid over by the secretary, except $41,129.74, being 5 per cent. of the amount received, which sum the secretary retained until the government of Spain should make provision for paying the expenses of the commission. Of the $41,129.74 so retained, so much as could be utilized for the purpose was invested in securities of the United States, and thereafter the surplus, with the interest which accrued on the first investment, was similarly invested, and so were subsequent accumulations of interest. In a circular letter addressed by the then secretary of state to Angarica, when the 5 per cent. was withheld, it was said: 'Five per centum of the amount due in each case will be reserved for the present, to meet the expenses of the commission, until a payment to cover such expenses shall have been made by Spain in conformity with the provision in that regard of said agreement of February 12, 1871, between the United States and Spain.' In a report made by Mr. Evarts, secretary of state, to the president, dated February 16, 1880, and transmitted by him
Page 255
to the senate, the secretary stated that 'this retention of 5 per centum may be regarded as provisional only, the commission not having yet taken the final step of adding a percentage to the amount of its awards in order to meet the expenses of the commission.' The then secretary of state also notified Angarica that 'it is hoped that no great delay will occur in receiving the payment from Spain, which will liberate this reserve for expenses, and the department will expect to keep this reserve invested in interest-bearing securities of the United States, to cover the delay in its distribution to the claimants.' On the 12th of February, 1885, Mr. Frelinghuysen, then secretary of state, paid to the petitioner the $41,129.74, but did not pay any inters t or income which had been earned by its investment. Correspondence thereupon ensued between the attorneys for the petitioner and Mr. Frelinghuysen, in regard to the payment of such interest, in which such attorneys referred to a letter written to them on the 13th of September, 1880, by Mr. Evarts, then secretary of state, in which they alleged that he had officially promised to pay the interest earned on the money; but no copy of such letter is found in the record. Mr. Frelinghuysen declined to pay any interest. The attorneys renewed the correspondence with Mr. Bayard, in October, 1885, but he refused to pay the interest, on the ground that the matter had been decided by his predecessor, and that his decision was in accordance with the almost unbroken rulings of the executive and judicial departments of the government; citing the opinion of Attorney General Cushing, 7 Op. Attys. Gen. 523, and the case of Gordon v. U. S., 7 Wall. 188. Further correspondence ensued, and in one letter Mr. Bayard stated that the investment of the retained moneys was in pursuance of the general system founded on section 2 of the act of September 11, 1841, c. 25, (5 St. 465,) now section 3659 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is prescribed that 'all funds held in trust by the United States, and the annual interest accruing thereon, when not otherwise required by treaty, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, bearing a rate of interest not less than five per centum per annum;' that, the enactment being
Page 256
silent as to the beneficiary by such a transaction, 'the sole competence of congress, which prescribed the mode of investment, to direct the disposition of the proceeds, is beyond dispute;' that congress exercised its discretion in regard to the payment of interest in the case of the Japanese indemnity fund, and in the case of the Alabama claims fund; that it is res adjudicata that the secretary of state has no discretionary power to dispose of the accumulations resulting from investments made in pursuance of the act of September 11, 1841; and that, therefore, he cannot be bound by what he deems to have been the improvident intimation contained in Mr. Evarts' letter of September 13, 1880. In reply to a further letter from the attorneys, Mr. Bayard, while furnishing them with a statement of the amount of the original award and its date, and of the amount received from Spain and the date of its receipt, and of the amount paid to the estate of Angarica, less the 5 per cent. previously retained, and of the date of such payment, and of the amount of the 5 per cent. retained, declined to state whether such 5 per cent. was invested in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States, No. 39-81T.
...10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1160, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 658-59 67 S.Ct. 601, 603, 91 L.Ed. 577......
-
F.D.I.C. v. Hurwitz, No. CIV.A. H-95-3956.
...The tax burden on this level of income is about 17%. Source: Cato Institute. 633. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 32 L.Ed. 159 634. FDIC v. World University, Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir.1992). 635. O'Melveny & Myers v. FDIC, 512 U.S. ......
-
United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, Appeal No. 2-74
...10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565, 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 658-59, 67 S.Ct. 601, 91 L.Ed. 577 (1947);......
-
Library of Congress v. Shaw, No. 85-54
...the award of interest was affirmatively and separately contemplated by Congress. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1161, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888) ("The case, therefore, falls within the well-settled principle, that the United States are not lia......
-
Shaw v. Library of Congress, 82-1019
...of assessment against United States for confiscation of securities, in part to prevent unjust enrichment), with Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888) (disallowing interest as an item in assessment against United States for money withheld from awardee). Courts a......
-
Library of Congress v. Shaw, 85-54
...the award of interest was affirmatively and separately contemplated by Congress. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1161, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888) ("The case, therefore, falls within the well-settled principle, that the United States are not lia......
-
United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, Appeal No. 2-74
...10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565, 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 658-59, 67 S.Ct. 601, 91 L.Ed. 577 (1947);......
-
Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States, 39-81T.
...10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1160, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co., 329 U.S. 654, 658-59 67 S.Ct. 601, 603, 91 L.Ed. 577......