Case ID: us-ct-cl_13/html/0521-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Strong", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McLEAN’S CASE.
    (12 C. Cls. R., 236, 705; 95 U. S. R., 750.)
    J. K. McLean, appellee, v. The United States, appellants.
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    
      In March, 1871, a postmaster is appointed and his salary fixed at $7 a year till it can he ascertained iv'hat the business of his office ivill be. In July, 1872, it is fixed at $560 a year. lie claims that under the statute prescribing the basis of compensation he was entitled to $578 for the interval, and that the Postmaster-General wrongfully neglected and refused to fix it on the basis prescribed by law, but it appears that his application for a readjustment was not accompanied by a sworn statement of the income of his office.
    
    
      The court below is equally divided on tlie law. But tlie claimant having no right of appeal, the court frames pro forma, for the punosos of an appeal, conclusions of law, in which it is held that when the quarterly returns of a postmaster show that the salary allowed him is ten per cent, less than that prescribed by the Acts 22d June, 1854, and 1st July, 1864 (10 Stat. L., p. 298; 13 id., 335, § 2), it becomes the duty of the Postmaster-General to readjust it; and that where he neglects to do so, the officer may recover the minimum compensation allowed by statute. Judgment pro forma for the claimant. The defendants appeal.
    The judgment pro forma of the court below is reversed, and the Supreme Court holds: (1) That the readjustment of postmasters’ salaries by the Postmaster-General is an executive act, taking effect prospectively; (2) That where the Postmaster-General neglects to make the readjustment in the manner prescribed by law, the postmaster may cbmpel him to act by mandamus but cannot recover in an action the compensation which should have been allowed him.
   Mr. Justice Strong

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, January 21, 1878.