Wheless v. Mellon
| Decision Date | 04 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4266.,4266. |
| Citation | 10 F.2d 893 |
| Parties | WHELESS v. MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Joseph Wheless, of New York City, in pro. per.
Peyton Gordon, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
The complainant, Joseph Wheless, brought this suit in the lower court against the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of the United States Veterans' Bureau, praying for an injunction to restrain these officials and those serving under them from executing or carrying out the provisions of the Act of Congress of May 19, 1924, entitled "An act to provide adjusted compensation for veterans of the World War, and for other purposes" (43 Stat. 121 Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 9127 — 1 et seq.), and from doing or performing any of the duties imposed upon them by that act or complying with the requirements thereof. The grounds alleged for this relief are that the act is unjust, illegal, and unreasonable class legislation, and is unconstitutional, null, and void.
The complainant alleges that he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the state of New York, and pays income taxes and other federal taxes there; that he is a veteran of the World War, honorably discharged from service; and that "he brings this action for himself and on behalf of all other persons qualifying as entitled to sue, who may join in this action and share in the expenses of the same."
A motion was filed by the defendants to dismiss the bill, upon the grounds, among others, that it failed to show that the complainant "has such an interest in the subject-matter of this suit as would entitle him to maintain the same." The lower court sustained this motion, and dismissed the bill. The complainant appealed.
We agree with the ruling of the lower court. The right of the complainant to bring this suit is based solely upon the claim that because of the act he will suffer injury as a citizen and taxpayer, in common with all other citizens and taxpayers similarly situated, and that he should have "the right possessed by every citizen to require that the government be administered according to law and that the public moneys be not wasted."
But in Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, and Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, 262 U. S. 447, 486, 43 S. Ct. 597, 67 L. Ed. 1078, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that a suit by an individual, as a past and future federal taxpayer, to restrain the enforcement of an act of Congress authorizing appropriations of public money, upon the ground that the act is invalid, cannot be entertained in equity, and that, to invoke the judicial power to disregard a statute as unconstitutional, the party who assails it must show, not only that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vining v. Exec. Bd. of D.C. Health Benefit Exch. Auth.
...12 App.D.C. at 459–60 ; Burleson , 40 App.D.C. at 508–09. Two other cases cited by Mr. Vining are even less on point. Wheless v. Mellon , 10 F.2d 893 (D.C. Ct. App. 1926), involved a federal taxpayer's suit to restrain a federal government expenditure, which was barred by the Supreme Court'......
-
Reynolds v. Wade
...of religious and sectarian institutions" is involved); Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County, 4 Cir., 91 F.2d 665, 676; Wheless v. Mellon, 56 App.D. C. 98, 10 F.2d 893, 894-895; Railway Express Agency v. Kennedy, 7 Cir., 189 F. 2d 801, 804. An injury in a legal sense which may justify such an ......
- Hunt v. Evans