Medkirk v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case. The grounds of the claimant’s motion will be found in the opinion of the court. 1. The report of the case is in 44 C. Cls. R., 469. In the actual necessity to make removals was included the legal necessity to make them in accordance with the statutes, and not contrary to them.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case. The grounds of the claimant’s motion will be found in the opinion of the court. 1. The report of the case is in 44 C. Cls. R., 469. In the actual necessity to make removals was included the legal necessity to make them in accordance with the statutes, and not contrary to them. That could be done only by removing such clerk or clerks as had not had military service, of whom, as Finding VI shows, there were then twelve in the Indianapolis office, and with whom claimant, in the language of Finding V, was “ able and equally qualified ” to discharge the duties…
1Opinion of the Court
Howry, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of the court:. Petitioner, as an honorably discharged veteran of the civil war, was appointed to be a clerk in the pension agency at Indianapolis. Without delinquency or misconduct on his part, but in consequence of the reduction of the force of the office under a law limiting the force, he was removed from his position without the filing of written charges against him. The act of August 15, 1816 (19 Stats., 169), provided that in making reductions of force in executive departments the head of a department should retain those persons who being equally qualified…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wilcox v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Decatur v. PauldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
- Keim v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Ex Parte Duncan N. HennenSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Wolsey v. ChapmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920