McCarl v. Rogers

D.C. Circuit

McCarl v. Rogers

48 F.2d 1023, 60 App. D.C. 111, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 6, 1931

DocketNo. 4727

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 F.2d 1023 (McCarl v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McCarl v. Rogers, 48 F.2d 1023, 60 App. D.C. 111, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322 (D.C. Cir. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District restraining appellants from interfering to prevent the payment of $610 alleged by appellee to have been improperly withheld from his pay and allowances as an officer of the United States Navy to and including November 30, 1925, and enjoining and commanding appellant Secretary of the Navy “and his subordinates in the United States naval service” to cause to be paid and to pay to appellee any and all sums withheld from appellee’s pay and allowances by reason of “disputed claims.”

In McCarl v. Walters, 59 App. D. C. 237, 38 F.(2d) 942, we ruled that, under the Act of May 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 654), validating payments for commutation of quarters, heat, and light, and of rental allowances on account of dependents, the Comptroller General is vested with jurisdiction to determine whether pay of a naval officer, withheld prior to July 1, 1923, on account of allowances for dependent mother, should he refunded. We further ruled that, where a statute vests discretion in an executive officer, the exercise of that discretion, unless arbitrary or capricious, is not subject to control by mandamus or mandatory injunction.

The facts in the present case are substantially similar to those in the Walters Case. For reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the decree in this case must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District restraining appellants from interfering to prevent the payment of $610 alleged by appellee to have been improperly withheld from his pay and allowances as an officer of the United States Navy to and including November 30, 1925, and enjoining and commanding appellant Secretary of the Navy “and his subordinates in the United States naval service” to cause to be paid and to pay to appellee any and all sums withheld from appellee’s pay and allowances by reason of “disputed claims.”

In McCarl v. Walters, 59 App. D. C. 237, 38 F.(2d) 942, we ruled that, under the Act of May 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 654), validating payments for commutation of quarters, heat, and light, and of rental allowances on account of dependents, the Comptroller General is vested with jurisdiction to determine whether pay of a naval officer, withheld prior to July 1, 1923, on account of allowances for dependent mother, should he refunded. We further ruled that, where a statute vests discretion in an executive officer, the exercise of that discretion, unless arbitrary or capricious, is not subject to control by mandamus or mandatory injunction.

The facts in the present case are substantially similar to those in the Walters Case. For reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the decree in this case must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F.2d 1023, 60 App. D.C. 111, 1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarl-v-rogers-cadc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack