Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Statement of Facts.

ever, this honorable court shall decide that these claimants are not limited in the amount by the terms of the award of the said Secretary of the Treasury, then these claimants claim that the amount of the said G. Alexander Ramsay's share should be computed upon the entire amount obtained by the United States from said railway company, and the claimants aver that the amount prescribed by the original circular of August 14th, 1866, was the sum of two thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars on the first twelve thousand dollars, and five per cent. on all over twelve thousand dollars, making the share of said Ramsay on the said fifteen thousand six hundred and ninetyfour dollars and three cents, the sum of three thousand and thirty-four dollars and seventy cents, which amount they claim.

"The said G. Alexander Ramsay, in his lifetime, after failing to obtain satisfactory action from the Treasury Department, did, on the third day of September, 1877, file a claim in this honorable court to recover the amount of his share as informer, which claim, for the reason that the Secretary of the Treasury had not yet ascertained and decided that said Ramsay was the informer in the case, or whether there was any informer, was by this honorable court on the 5th day of May, 1879, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A bill for the relief of the said Ramsay has been several times presented in Congress, but no action taken thereon until the first session of the 48th Congress, when the same was referred to this honorable court, under the act of March 3d, 1883, for a finding of facts, and a finding of facts was on the 15th day of May, 1884, made by this court and reported to Congress, and thereafter, on the 5th day of July, 1884, a favorable report was made on his claim by the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives, but was not acted upon by the said House.

"No other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or by any of the departments.

"The claimants are the sole owners of this claim, and the only persons interested therein; and no assignment or transfer of this claim, or of any part thereof or interest therein, has been made.

Statement of Facts.

"The claimants are justly entitled to the amount herein claimed from the United States, after allowing all just credits and off-sets. The claimants are, and said G. Alexander Ramsay was, citizens of the United States, and have at all times. borne true allegiance to the Government thereof, and have not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government; and the claimants believe the facts as stated in this petition to be true. And the claimants demand judgment for three thousand and thirty-four dollars and seventy cents ($3034.70)."

The "decision and award of the Secretary" of the Treasury annexed to the claimant's petition was as follows:"

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

“GEORGE A. KING, Esqr.,

"Attorney for G. Alexander Ramsay,

"1420 New York Avenue, Washington, D.C.: "SIR: In your letter of the 31st ultimo, in behalf of your client, G. Alexander Ramsay, you state that all you ask is 'that you, Mr. Secretary, will adjudicate and decide upon the evidence before you a plain, simple question of fact, never be fore considered or decided in any manner by yourself or any of your predecessors, or any of your or their assistants, namely, whether Mr. Ramsay was, or was not, the first informer whereby the sum of $5000.00 penalties, and $10,694.03 tax, interest, and costs, were recovered from the Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, for frauds upon the revenue; and that having decided this question, you will refer the case to the Court of Claims, under § 1063 of the Revised Statutes, for trial and adjudication.'

"In reply, I have to say that the claim of your client referred to, although presented to the Secretary of the Treasury in the year 1875, as shown by the records of this office, has never been formally rejected by any Secretary of the Treasury.

"The records show also that no Secretary of the Treasury has ever ascertained and determined whether there was any

Statement of Facts.

informer in the case referred to, nor has it ever been determined and declared formally by any Secretary whether your client, Mr. Ramsay, was or was not the first informer in this

case.

"All that is shown by the records of this office on this point is that Mr. Ramsay was notified by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that he was not entitled to the share for which he made application, because the act of June 6, 1872, repealing informers' shares, went into effect before the case in which he claimed the share had been compromised, and that the claim was merely marked 'too late,' that no finding or award was made, and that no letter of rejection was written by the Secretary to the claimant.

"In this state of the case I see no objection to complying with your request, so far as to state that it clearly appears from the evidence on file in this case that your client, George Alexander Ramsay, was the first informer against the Houston and Texas Central Railway Company, and that the information given by him led to the recovery from said company of penalties amounting to $5000.00.

"The informer's share of that amount would have been $1700.00, under the schedule of shares prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in a circular issued by him, August 14, 1866, pursuant to the authority conferred by $ 179 of the act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 305, as amended by the act of July 13, 1866, 14 Stat. 145. This amount was not paid, because said § 179 was repealed by § 39 of the act of June 6, 1872, 17 Stat. 256, which took effect August 1, 1872, § 47, and the Department held, under the wording of said § 179, viz.: 'That no right accrues to or is invested in any informer in any case until the fine, penalty, or forfeiture in such case is fixed by judgment or compromise, and the amount or proceeds shall have been paid,' that unless the amount of the fine, penalty, or forfeiture had been both fixed and paid to the Government prior to August 1, 1872, no share of the same could be paid to the informer, and that as the case in question was not compromised until in 1874, Mr. Ramsay was not entitled to receive the allotted share.

Opinion of the Court.

"That the present Secretary is not bound to accept and act upon th's construction of the law is made plain by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the United States v. MacDaniel, 7 Pet. 1, wherein it is said: 'It will not be contended that one Secretary has not the same power as another to give a construction to an act which relates to the business of his Department.'

"Nevertheless, as the construction referred to has been applied, as I am informed, to a large number of cases, and has been acquiesced in from 1875 to the present time, I prefer not to set it aside without the authority of a judicial construction, and therefore I decline to award or order the payment of the share claimed by Mr. Ramsay in this case.

"It is presumed that upon this official action your client will now be in a condition to prosecute his claim in the Court of Claims, and that that court will have full jurisdiction of the "Very respectfully,

case.

"D. MANNING,
"Secretary."

The defendants to this petition filed a general demurrer as follows:

"And now come the said defendants, by their Attorney General, and demurring to the petition in this cause, state as the ground thereof that the petition does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"ROBERT A. HOWARD,
"Assistant Attorney General."

The Courts of Claims rendered judgment for the whole amount of the claim, from which the United States took this appeal.

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. F. P. Dewees for appellant.

Mr. George A. King and Mr. William W. Handlin for appellees.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE announced that the judgment of the Court of Claims was

Affirmed by a Divided Court.

Opinion of the Court.

EVERHART v. HUNTSVILLE COLLEGE.

CLAY v. HUNTSVILLE COLLEGE.

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.

[blocks in formation]

An averment that the complainant in a bill of equity "resides" in a state is not an averment that he is a citizen of the state, so as to give a Circuit Court of the United States jurisdiction over the subject-matter by reason of citizenship of the parties.

When the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court depends upon the citizenship of the parties, and that court takes jurisdiction and renders judgment, and the record in this court in error or on appeal fails to show the requisite citizenship, the judgment will be reversed and the case remanded by this court on its own motion, and the party in default adjudged to pay costs here.

THESE two causes were argued and submitted together. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Milton Humes for appellant Everhart.
Mr. Samuel F. Rice for appellant Clay.

Mr. John D. Brandon for appellees. Mr. D. D. Shelby and Mr. L. P. Walker, also for appellees, submitted on their brief.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the

court.

These are appeals from a decree dismissing the original bill and a cross-bill in a suit begun in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama, by George M. Everhart against the Huntsville Female Academy, George W. F. Price, Martha T. Rison, Myra J. Erwin, Robert M. Erwin, William II. Erwin, Joseph B. Erwin, and Marcus A. Erwin, and in which Hugh L. Clay, as administrator de bonis non of Abraham R. Erwin, deceased, was afterwards

« PrejšnjaNaprej »