Chalk v. Darden
Chalk v. Darden
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the writ of mandamus was properly refused—
1. Because the court had no power over the comptroller in the discharge of the duty imposed on Mm, as one of the heads of department, under the Constitution.
2. Because, if the appellant was a Mier prisoner within the meaning of the act of April 21,1874, he had no vested right in the bounty of the State; but it was competent for the same authority which proposed to give, “ to revoke before any interest was perfected in the donee.” The repeal of the law was not retroactive or retrospective legislation. (De
The law authorizing the pension having been repealed, the comptroller was left without authority to act, and the writ of mandamus was properly refused.
’ The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Whitfield Chalk v. S. H. Darden, Comptroller, &c.
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Mandamus—Heads of departments.—The District Court has no power over the Comptroller in the discharge of the duty imposed on him, as one of the heads of departments, under the Constitution. 2. Pensions—Repeal of law.—It is competent for the Legislature to repeal a pension law. Such repeal is not retroactive or retrospective legislation; it however has the effect of revoking the grant of pension as to all claims save where an interest had been perfected in the claimant. 3. Repeal of pension law.—The absolute repeal of such law left unfinished applications without any tribunal to pass upon them.