Reeside v. Walker
13 L. Ed. 693, 52 U.S. 272, 11 How. 272 (1851)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a claim against the United States unless Congress has made a specific appropriation for that payment. The principle of sovereign immunity prevents a judgment for a monetary award from being entered against the government on a defendant's set-off claim, as this would be equivalent to permitting an unauthorized suit against the United States.
Facts:
- The United States initiated a lawsuit against James Reeside concerning certain post-office contracts.
- In his defense, Reeside pleaded a set-off, claiming that the United States owed him a significant sum of money.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of Reeside on the issues raised.
- The jury certified that the United States was indebted to Reeside in the amount of $188,496.06.
- After Reeside's death, his executrix, the plaintiff, demanded payment of this amount from the Secretary of the Treasury.
- The Secretary of the Treasury refused to enter the amount as a credit or pay the claim.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued James Reeside in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where a jury certified a debt owed by the U.S. to Reeside on a set-off claim.
- Subsequently, Reeside's executrix filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against Walker, the Secretary of the Treasury, in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
- The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the petition for the writ of mandamus.
- The petitioner (Reeside's executrix) then brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to seek reversal of the dismissal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a writ of mandamus lie against the Secretary of the Treasury to compel him to pay a monetary claim against the United States, which was certified by a jury verdict in a set-off but not reduced to a final judgment for payment, where Congress has not appropriated funds for the payment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Woodbury
No, a writ of mandamus does not lie in these circumstances. A court cannot compel a government officer to pay a claim from the Treasury without a specific congressional appropriation, and sovereign immunity bars a court from entering a judgment of indebtedness against the United States on a set-off claim. The court reasoned on several grounds. First, the petitioner failed to show a clear legal right because no proper final judgment for the amount was ever entered against the United States. The docket minutes showing 'judgment on the verdict' were insufficient. Under the relevant state practice, a jury's certification of a debt owed by the plaintiff on a set-off did not result in a judgment to recover money ('quod recuperet'), but merely established a debt of record that required a separate action ('scire facias') to enforce, which was never pursued. Second, the court held that allowing a defendant to obtain an affirmative judgment against the United States on a set-off would be a circumvention of sovereign immunity, which dictates that the government cannot be sued without its consent. Third, a writ of mandamus is only available to compel a ministerial, non-discretionary duty. The Secretary of the Treasury has no general duty to pay unadjudicated claims; such an act is discretionary and not compelled by any law. Finally, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause (Art. I, § 9) forbids any money from being drawn from the Treasury except through an appropriation made by law. Since Congress had not appropriated funds to pay this specific claim, the Secretary was legally powerless to pay it, and no court could order him to do so. The petitioner's proper remedy was to petition Congress for payment.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision reinforcing the strict separation of powers concerning the federal purse and the robust nature of sovereign immunity. It clarifies that the judicial power to issue a mandamus cannot override the constitutional power of Congress to control government spending through the Appropriations Clause. The ruling establishes that even a seemingly valid claim against the government, supported by a jury verdict, is unenforceable through the courts without explicit legislative authorization for payment. This precedent solidifies the principle that sovereign immunity cannot be circumvented indirectly through procedural devices like set-offs and establishes Congress, not the courts or executive officers, as the ultimate gatekeeper for paying the government's debts.
