Vigo Case Ex parte United States

Citation88 U.S. 648,22 L.Ed. 690,21 Wall. 648
PartiesVIGO'S CASE: EX PARTE UNITED STATES
Decision Date01 October 1874
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

SUR petition for mandamus.

On the 8th of June, 1872, Congress passed the following act:

'An act referring the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, to the Court of Claims for adjustment.

'Be it enacted, &c., That the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, late of Terre Haute, Indiana, for money and supplies furnished the troops under command of General George Rogers Clarke, in the year 1778, during the Revolutionary war, be, and the same is hereby, referred, along with all the papers and official documents belonging thereto, to the Court of Claims, with full jurisdiction to adjust and settle the same; and, in making such adjustment and settlement, the said court shall be governed by the rules and regulations heretofore adopted by the United States in the settlement of like cases, giving consideration to official acts, if any have heretofore been had in connection with this claim, and without regard to the statutes of limitations.'

On the 31st October, 1873, the heirs of Colonel Vigo filed in the Court of Claims their petition against the United States, under the authority of this act, and with their petition filed 'the papers and official documents belonging' to the claim. Judgment was rendered in the action on the 18th January, 1875, against the United States for $49,898. From this judgment the United States asked the Court of Claims for the allowance of an appeal to this court, which was refused. The present application was for a mandamus from this court directing the judges of that to allow the appeal.

Mr. J. S. Blair, for the United States (with whom were Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. John Goforth, Assistant Attorney-General), cited Meade v. United States,1 to show that if, as the other side of necessity assumed, the Court of Claims was authorized to enter a judgment which was to be paid out of the appropriations for the judgments of the said court, then the United States was entitled to an appeal and re-examination of the whole case.

Mr. William Penn Clarke, contra, relied on Ex parte Atocha,2 which case, as he contended, showed that where jurisdiction was given to the Court of Claims by special act—as here—the authority of this court to review its action was limited and controlled by the provisions of the act; arguing, in addition, that the provisions of the present act did not provide for an appeal.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The Court of Claims, by the terms of the act under which it is organized, has jurisdiction, among other things, to hear and determine all claims which may be referred to it by either House of Congress.3 All petitions and bills praying or providing for the satisfaction of private claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the government, are required to be transmitted, with all the accompanying documents, to the Court of Claims, by the secretary of the Senate or the clerk of the House of Representatives, unless otherwise ordered by a resolution of the House in which they are introduced.4 In all cases of final judgments by the Court of Claims, the sum due thereby is to be paid out of any general appropriation made by law for the payment and satisfaction of private claims, on presentation to the Secretary of the Treasury of a copy of the judgment.5 By the act of June 25th, 1868,6 in force when the proceedings in the Court of Claims were commenced in this case, it was provided that an appeal should be allowed on behalf of the United States 'from all final judgments of the said Court of Claims adverse to the United States, whether the said judgment shall have been rendered by virtue of the general or special power or jurisdiction of said court.' This act is substantially re-enacted in section seven hundred and seven of the Revised Statutes, and, as we think, gives to the United States the right of appeal from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • American Tobacco Co. v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 21, 1912
    ...... a crossing for the street traffic as would exist in case the tracks were depressed, and that the method of ... and Old Manchester Road are laid the tracks of the United Railways Company of St. Louis, a street railway company ... 10 of article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, and articles 5 and 8, and section 1 of article 14, of the ...Town, 36 Conn. 304; Smith v. Stephens, 82 Ill. 554; Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. 648, 22 L. Ed. 690. It is an `old and ......
  • American Tobacco Company and American Car Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1912
    ...... by the defendant railroads in this case, who appeared before. the Board of Public Improvements, ...110; Commissioners v. Gas Co., 12 Pa. St. 318; Ex parte Whitwell, 98 Cal. 73;. St. Paul v. Laidler, 2 Minn. 190; ... Manchester road are laid the tracks of the United Railways. Company of St. Louis, a street railway company ... the United States, and articles 5 and 8, and section 1 of. article 14, of ...304; Smith v. Stephens, 82 Ill. 554; Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. 648, 22. L.Ed. 690.] It is an 'old and ......
  • State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 29, 1906
    ...... held in the case last cited, it has equally a right to compel. the ... of other states. Several questions are presented by the. record which will ... supreme court of the United States. [98 Minn. 389] It. involves an exercise of the ...304; Smith v. Stevens, 82 Ill. 554; Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. 648, 22 L.Ed. 690. It is an. "old and ......
  • State ex rel. City of Minneapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 29, 1906
    ......        The case is an important one, not only to the railway companies of ..., and in harmony with the law and policy of other states. Several questions are presented by the record which will ..., Vermont, Wisconsin, and by the Supreme Court of the United States. It involves an exercise of the police power, and ...Groton, 36 Conn. 304;Smith v. Stevens, 82 Ill. 554; Vigo's Case, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 648, 22 L. Ed. 690. ‘It is an ......
  • 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