From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States ex Rel. Dunlap v. Black

U.S.
Oct 22, 1888
128 U.S. 40 (1888)

Summary

relating to a pension

Summary of this case from Clackamas County, Ore. v. McKay

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Nos. 991, 992, 993.

Argued October 12, 1888. Decided October 22, 1888.

The courts will not interfere by mandamus with the executive officers of the government in the exercise of their ordinary official duties, even where those duties require an interpretation of the law; no appellate power being given them for that purpose. When an executive officer of the government refuses to act at all in a case in which the law requires him to act, or when, by special statute, or otherwise, a mere ministerial duty is imposed upon him, that is, a service which he is bound to perform without further question, if he refuses mandamus lies to compel him to his duty. The Commissioner of Pensions by receiving the application of a pensioner for an increase of his pension under the act of June 16, 1880, 21 Stat. 281, c. 236, and by considering it and the evidence in support of it, and by deciding adversely to the petitioner, performs the executive act which the law requires him to perform in such case; and the courts have no appellate power over him in this respect, and no right to review his decision. A decision of the Commissioner of Pensions adverse to the application of a pensioner for an increase of pension, under a statute granting an increase in certain cases, being overruled by the Secretary of the Interior on the ground that the applicant comes under the meaning of the law granting the increase, and the Commissioner refusing to carry out the decision of his superior, the pensioner is entitled to a rule upon the Commissioner to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to compel him to obey the decision of the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. J.G. Bigelow and Mr. S.S. Henkle for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury as Amicus Curiæ.


THESE cases came here on writs of error to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to review several judgments of that court refusing orders upon the Commissioner of Pensions to show cause why in each case a writ of mandamus should not issue, requiring him to increase the pension of the petitioner. The cases were argued together, and in each the facts which makes the case here are stated in the opinion of the court.


These cases were argued together, but it will be convenient to consider them separately, in the order in which they stand on the docket.


Summaries of

United States ex Rel. Dunlap v. Black

U.S.
Oct 22, 1888
128 U.S. 40 (1888)

relating to a pension

Summary of this case from Clackamas County, Ore. v. McKay

discussing mandamus

Summary of this case from Brooks v. U.S.

In United States ex rel. Dunlap v. Black, 128 U.S. 40, 32 L. ed. 354, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12, one Dunlap applied to the commissioner of pensions for an increase in pension, which it was claimed the applicant was entitled to receive under an act of Congress. The commissioner of pensions rejected the application on the ground that the applicant did not come within the terms of the act.

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Howieson v. Fraser
Case details for

United States ex Rel. Dunlap v. Black

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES ex rel . DUNLAP v . BLACK, COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS. UNITED…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 22, 1888

Citations

128 U.S. 40 (1888)
9 S. Ct. 12

Citing Cases

Huntt v. Government of Virgin Islands

compel such an officer to proceed to exercise his judgment or discretion in regard to a matter in which he is…

Weeks v. Goltra

" In the same case it is said: "Neither an injunction nor mandamus will lie against an officer of the Land…