United States Ex Rel. Parish v. MacVeagh

Citations

• 214 U.S. 124
• 29 S. Ct. 556
• 53 L. Ed. 936
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1898

Syllabus

<p>If the reference by Congress to the Secretary'of the Treasury to ascertain the, amount due to a claimant a'nd pay the same requires the exercise of discretion the courts cannot control his decision, Riverside Oil Company v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316; but where the statute simply requires him to ascertain the amount, according to .certain prescribed rules,' the duty is administrative; and, the amount being ascertained 'according to those rules, the courts eán by mandamus compel the Secretary to issue his warrant therefor.</p> <p>The .statute involved' in this case, referring the ascertainment of the ' amount due'a claimant to the Sefcretary of the Treasury, construed on the supposition that” Congress regarded the controversy as over . and that only the amount remained for ascertainment, as any intricate judicial problem would naturally be referred to the judicial tribunals.</p> <p>The history of the litigation and législation in regard to the claim - of Parish against the United, States for damages on contract for ice ' made in 1863 for use of armies in the field reviewed' and held that under the act of February 17, 1903, c. 559, 32 Stat.1612, directing the Secretary of the Treasury “to determine and ascertain the.full amount which- should have been paid to Parish if the contract had been carried out in full without charge®or default by either party” and to issue his warrant therefor, po judicial duty devolved upon the Secretary, nor has the Secretary power to -determine what was right or proper but only the administrative duty of ascertaining the amount and payiiig the same;.and, the amount having been ascer-. tamed, the claimant is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to issue his warrant therefor.</p> <p>30 App. D. C. 45; reversed.</p>