United States ex rel. Warfield v. Boutwell

7 D.C. 64
CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 11, 1870
DocketNo 6245
StatusPublished

This text of 7 D.C. 64 (United States ex rel. Warfield v. Boutwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States ex rel. Warfield v. Boutwell, 7 D.C. 64 (D.C. 1870).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Cartter

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The petition discloses facts which are fatal to the application for mandamus. A majority of the court are convinced that the writ will not lie in this case. The difficulty here is that the class of individuals on whom the law confers the 20 per cent., are, under the law, to be determined by the Secretary. We do not see how this court can control the action of the Secretary in making, this determination.

[65]*65The right to issue the writ of mandamus to officers of the Government is limited to cases where the duties to be performed are strictly ministerial as in the case of Stokes vs. Kendall, where the duty to be performed was merely to enter a credit on the books of the Department.

Now here the officers of the Government are required to make certain inquiries as to the position and emoluments of certain employees, and to base on these inquiries the payment of certain sums to certain persons who should be found to come within the provision of the law. We think we have no power to interfere with the conclusions of the Secretary derived from that investigation.

Mr. Justice Olin dissented.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 D.C. 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-warfield-v-boutwell-dc-1870.