United States v. Jones Same v. Taubenheimer Same v. Montgomery
Decision Date | 13 May 1889 |
Citation | 131 U.S. 1,33 L.Ed. 90,9 S.Ct. 669 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. JONES. 1 SAME v. TAUBENHEIMER. SAME v. MONTGOMERY. 2 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Three suits by Carrie Jones, Henry Taubenheimer, and James B. Montgomery, respectively, against the United States, for specific performance. Demurrers to the petitions overruled, and the United States appeals.
These cases are suits in equity brought against the United States under the recent act of March 3, 1887, extending the jurisdiction of claims against the government to the district and circuit courts of the United States. They are suits for specific performance, seeking to compel the United States to issue and deliver to the plaintiffs respectively patents for timber land, alleged to have been taken up and purchased by them under the act for the sale of timber lands in the states of California, Oregon, etc., passed June 3, 1878, (20 St. 89.) The petitions contain averments of performance of the conditions required by said act, the payment of the price of the lands to the receiver of the land-office, the giving of his certificates and receipts therefor, and the refusal of the government to issue patents to the petitioners as entitled thereto. They pray in each case for a decree—First, that the petitioner is owner of the land by virtue of the purchase; and, second, that the United States issue and deliver, or cause to be issued and delivered, in accordance with law, a patent granting and conveying the land purchased. The United States, by its attorney, demurred to the several petitions. The circuit court overruled the demurrers, and rendered decrees for the plaintiffs. From these decrees the present appeals were taken.
Sol. Gen. Jenks and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, for appellant.
Jas. K. Kelly and Jas. C. Carter, for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-14 intentionally omitted]
The question involved is whether the act of March 3, 1887, which is entitled 'An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the government of the United States' (24 St. 505) authorizes suits of the kind like the present, which are brought, not for the recovery of money, but for equitable relief by specific performance, to compel the issue and delivery of a patent. In the case of U. S. v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573, we distinctly held that the acts of 1855 and 1863, which established the court of claims, and defined its jurisdiction, did not give it power to entertain any such suits as these; and that case was followed by Bonner v. U.S., 9 Wall. 156, and has been approved in subsequent cases. U.S.
v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407, 412; U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 404. It is argued, however, that the new law has extended the jurisdiction of the court of claims and the concurrent jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts, or at least the latter, so as to embrace every kind of claim, equitable as well as legal, and specific relief, or a recovery of property, as well as a recovery of money. If such is the legislative will, of course the courts must conform to it, although the management and disposal of the public domain, in which the newly-claimed jurisdiction would probably be most frequently called into exercise, has always been regarded as more appropriately belonging to the political department of the government than to the courts, and more a matter of administration than judicature. A careful examination of the state, and a comparison of its terms with those of the acts of 1855 and 1863, can alone settle the question.
By the first section of the act of 1855 (10 St. 612) it was enacted that a court should be established, to be called the 'Court of Claims,' the jurisdiction of which was defined as follows: 'The said court shall hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the government of the United States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed therein; and also all claims which may be referred to it by either house of congress.' The act of March 3, 1863, passed to amend the act of 1855, (12 St. 765,) added: 'That the said court * * * shall also have jurisdiction of all set-offs, counter-claims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever, on the part of the government against any person making claim against the government in said court.' Jurisdiction was subsequently given of claims for the proceeds of property captured or abandoned during the Rebellion, and of claims of paymasters and other disbursing officers for relief from responsibility on account of capture of government funds or property in their hands. These latter branches of jurisdiction need not be considered here.
Turning now to the act of March 3, 1887, which re-enacted
or revised the previous laws as to the jurisdiction of the court of claims, and conferred concurrent jurisdiction for limited amounts on the ordinary courts, we find the following language used: The jurisdiction here given to the court of claims is precisely the same as that given in the acts of 1855 and 1863, with the addition that it is extended to 'damages * * * in cases not sounding in tort' and to claims for which redress may be had 'either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty.' 'Damages in cases not sounding in tort'—that is to say, damages for breach of contract—had already been held to be recoverable against the government under the former acts. U. S. v. Behan, 110 U. S. 338, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 81; U. S. v. Manufacturing Co., 112 U. S. 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 306; Hollister v. Manufacturing Co., 113 U. S. 59, 67, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 717. 'Claims' redressible 'in a court of law, equity, or admi-
ralty,' may be claims for money only, or they may be claims for property or specific relief, according as the context of the statute may require or allow. The claims referred to in the original statute of 1855, as described in the first section thereof, above quoted, might have included claims for other things besides money; but various provisions of that act and of the act of March 3, 1863, were inconsistent with the enforcement of any claims under the law except claims for money. Thus, in the fifth section of the act of 1863, the right of appeal was limited to cases in which the amount in controversy exceeded $3,000, and in the seventh section it was provided that if judgment should be given in favor of the claimant, the sum due thereby should be paid out of any general appropriation made by law for the payment of private claims; and, if a judgment was affirmed on appeal, interest was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Mut Ins Co of District of Columbia v. Tidewater Transfer Co Inc
... ... Perlman, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of ... of the constitutional provisions of the same tenor and reasoned that the District was not a ... 701, 41 L.Ed. 1130; United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90. The ... ...
-
Allison v. United States
...plaintiff. It is well settled that this court\'s jurisdiction extends only to the granting of a monetary judgment. United States v. Jones, 131 U. S. 1 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90; United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573 18 L.Ed. 947; Hart v. United States, 91 Ct. Cl. 308. Id. at Again in Bortin v.......
-
Chambers v. United States
...money found due from the government to the petitioner." United States v. Alire, 6 Wall. 573, 575 18 L.Ed. 947. In United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90; this Court reaffirmed this view of the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and held that the passage of the......
-
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States
... ... , and Count II of the present complaint renews the same claim. The introduction of Government officers as the ... Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90 (1889); United ... ...
-
Sovereign immunity and informant defectors: the United States' refusal to protect its protectors.
...terms of some act of Congress are committed to it"). (130.) 28 U.S.C. [section] 1491(a)(1) (emphasis added). (131.) United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 18 (1889); see also Miami Tribe of Okla. v. United States, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1040 (D. Kan. 2004) (noting that because the sovereign has......