Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-12-18

R-.ae,a. Sal. Asais.. the Secretary o. u

R~fss~ld,s suit Asaisss the secressV
Treasury. ..
In the supreme Court Of the United ss
to-day the case Of the United states Oh w.
Amasa A. Redfield against the Secretary On
Treasury Window was argued by MT. y. n
Mackey for the relator (piaintih) and ~
sistant Attorney General Maury for oe-
PENDANT. The question involved 10 ss 70 us
power Of the secretary 10 withholda dram ane
the facts in the case as set forth in the bref are
as follows:
VIM Mitchell on September 8, 1895. ensereo
into contract with the United States 20 fnrnmn
material and perform labor for the itfe sN'ne
service in the construction and repair OF cer
tain houses on the coast Of Long Island. MI.
He afterward rendered his accounts Tor sns s
service. and on the 18th day OF February, isso'
the account WIS adjusted by the Treasury be-
partment, and two DAYS afterwsrd February
lS lsss) a letter was addressed o. him by the
commissioner OF customs stating that there was
due him sl2.5S6. and a draft therefor woain nc
RENTED. Accordingly draft payable 70 his
or Ter was drawn and sent 20 Capts. Moore ana
Merriam, superintendent at New YORK, by -
hlmbal, general superintendent OF the ire
saving service. with letter advising
thEt certain claims had been filed in the depart
ment against Mitchell amounting 60 s1z. ShS-ss
and that Mitchell had agreed that they should
bold the draft and he would communicate with
adjust the claims. and when .the meeting &C.
CURED was 20 deliver the draft When the
drafts arrived In New York Mitchell declined 20
recognize the right Of the department 10 inter
be had ever made the agreement set forth IN
himhall letter. As consequence delivery OF
Me draft was withheld. and il was returned 20
lie Treasury Department.
THE DRAFT ASSIGNED TO REDfIELD.
In the meantime one Of Mitchelrs creditors.
Patterson Brothers, having obtained Judgment
against him in the supreme court OF New York,
procured on the 9th Of February, lsss, an
order OF that court in proceedings supple
mental 10 execution whereby Mr.. Amssa A.
nedheid the relator) was appointed receiver OF
Mltcheiis property, intending the draft IN
question. On the same day Mitchell duly exc
cuted 10 said Reiieid am assignment OF the
draft. The relator then requested the depart
ment TO deliver the draft 20 him AZ assignee
thereof The department refused this request,
and the relator filed his petition FOR a writ of
mandamus on the ground that the duty OF the
Secretary TO deliver. cause 20 be delivered.
said draft Il purely ministerial one. and that
the Secretary has no right 90 retain the same
because OF any refusal the part Of Mitchell
to pay certain alleged creditors indicated by
the Secretary. BY stipulation the petition and
the order To show cause were agreed 20 be
taken AZ the ALTERNATIVE writ and thereupon u
demurrer was interposed, and the cause was
certified 10 the General Term for hearing in
the hrst instance. The demurrer was over
ruled. and the petition having been amended
return was made, and on the hearing the
petition was dismissed.
WRIT OF ERROR
The relator then sued out a writ Of error
alleging the following: II. the court erred in
dlsmissing the petition and in refusing TO issue
the peromptory writ of mandamus M prayed
Tor; 2. tho court erred in not deciding that it
was the duty Of the respondent 90 deliver 20
the reiator the draft FOR STA 536. isSued in
favor Of the relator assignor. William Mitchell.
and referred 10 in the relation: 3, the court
erred IN deciding that the duty Of the re-
spondent In respect Of the delivery of the said
draft was discretionary under the laws and
statutes of the United states"