Gordon v. United States
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court:
The court has fully considered the able and instructive argu
We think that the authority given to the head of an executive department, by necessary implication, in the fourteenth section of the amended Court of Claims act, to revise all the decisions of this court requiring payment of money, denies to it the judicial power from the exercise of which appeals can be taken to this court.
The reasons which necessitate this conclusion may be more fully announced hereafter. At present we restrict ourselves to this general statement, and to the direction that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- David Gordon, administrators or Fisher v. United States
- Cited By
- 9 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- On the claimants’ Appeal. The Amended Court of Claims act, (12 Stat. Z.,p.765,) provides for appeals from ■the Court of Claims to the Supreme Court, (sec. 5,) hut contains a provision, (sec. 14,) since repealed, Act 17tli March, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 9,) forbidding the payment of claims “passed iipon by the Court of Claims till after an appropriation therefor shall be estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury.” While this provision remains in force the claimants below appeal, and the case eomes to a hearing in the Supreme Court. The Amended Court of Claims act, (12 Stat. L., p. 765, sec. 14,) wherein it provides that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury for any claims passed upon by the Court of Claims till after an appropriation therefor shall be estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury,” by necessary implication, ( gives to the head of an Executive Department authority to revise the decisions of that court, and thereby denies to it the judicial power from the exercise of which, only under the Constitution, appeals can be taken to the Supreme Court.†