Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 F. Cas. 456

Ex parte Reeside

U.S. District Court

Decided November 21, 1848

U.S. District Court · decided 1848-11-21

This was a petition of Mary Reeside, executrix of Janies Reeside, for a writ of mandamus commanding the secretary of the treasury of the United States, first, to cause to he entered upon… Held: in the case of Chissell v. Georgia, 2 Dali. [2 U. S.] 478, that, under the constitution as it then existed, states were suable. This led to an amendment of the constitution, by which states were exempted from suit. In 1801, an act was passed re-organizing the courts. See 2 Stat. 02.

Decided 1848-11-21

CRANCH, Chief Judge.

¶1As to so much of this petition as asks for a mandamus commanding the secretary to pay the money, it is sufficient to say that there has been no specific appropriation of money to pay it.; and no money can constitutionally be drawn from the treasury of the United States without such an appropriation. And as to so much of the petition as asks for a mandamus commanding the secretary to cause a credit to the said James Iteeside, to be entered upon the books of the treasury department, for the sum of $188,49G.0G, this court has no jurisdiction or authority to issue such a writ to the secretary of the treasury; because there is no special law directing him to enter such a credit on the books of the treasury as there was in Kendall’s Case; and because it would *458command him to do an official executive act, in the performance of which he had a right to exercise judgment and discretion, and in which this court has no jurisdiction to guide and control him.

[This case was carried by writ of error to the supreme court, where the judgment of this court was affirmed. 11 How. (52 U. S.) 272.]

¶2The cases of Marbury v. Madison [1 Cranch (5 U. S.) 165], Kendall v. U. S. [12 Pet. (37 U. S.) 524], Decatur v. Paulding [14 Pet. (39 U. S.) 497], and Brashear v. Mason [6 How. (47 U. S.) 92], which were largely cited in McElrath v. McIntosh [Case No. 8,781], at the present term, are considered by this court as decisive of the present case. The court therefore refuses to issue the mandamus as prayed.

/20/fcas/456 · .json · Public domain