Nicholas v. United States

Court of Claims

Nicholas v. United States

53 Ct. Cl. 463, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 95, 1918 WL 1004

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 13, 1918

DocketNo. 33263

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 53 Ct. Cl. 463 (Nicholas v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nicholas v. United States, 53 Ct. Cl. 463, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 95, 1918 WL 1004 (cc 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Hat, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Both the plaintiff and defendants have discussed in their briefs the question of the legality of the removal from office of the plaintiff and the effect and meaning of section 6 of the act of August 24, 1912. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon those questions in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to show affirmatively his willingness and ability to discharge the duties of the office in question from the date of his removal therefrom down to the present time. If it should be held that the plaintiff was illegally removed from the office which he held, still in order that he may recover the salary which is alleged to be due him from the time of his alleged illegal removal therefrom to the present time it must appear affirmatively in the record that he was willing and able to discharge the duties of the office. There is no evidence in this record that such was the case. Indeed, there is no evidence of any kind of such willingness or ability. United States v. Wickersham, 201 U. S., 390, 399; Perkins v. United States, 20 C. Cls., 438, 441; Miller v. United States, 45 C. Cls., 509, 517.

The petition -will therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

DowNey, Judge; BarNey, Judge; Booth, Judge, and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

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

Hat, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Both the plaintiff and defendants have discussed in their briefs the question of the legality of the removal from office of the plaintiff and the effect and meaning of section 6 of the act of August 24, 1912. We do not deem it necessary to pass upon those questions in view of the fact that the plaintiff has failed to show affirmatively his willingness and ability to discharge the duties of the office in question from the date of his removal therefrom down to the present time. If it should be held that the plaintiff was illegally removed from the office which he held, still in order that he may recover the salary which is alleged to be due him from the time of his alleged illegal removal therefrom to the present time it must appear affirmatively in the record that he was willing and able to discharge the duties of the office. There is no evidence in this record that such was the case. Indeed, there is no evidence of any kind of such willingness or ability. United States v. Wickersham, 201 U. S., 390, 399; Perkins v. United States, 20 C. Cls., 438, 441; Miller v. United States, 45 C. Cls., 509, 517.

The petition -will therefore be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

DowNey, Judge; BarNey, Judge; Booth, Judge, and Campbell, Chief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Ct. Cl. 463, 1918 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 95, 1918 WL 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-v-united-states-cc-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack