Case: FERDINAND N. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Shurtleff v. United States
Decision Date: 1902-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 38 Ct. Cl. 746
Volume: 38
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FERDINAND N. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
FERDINAND N. SHURTLEFF v. THE UNITED STATES.
[36 C. Cls. R., 34; 189 U. S. R., 311.]
On the claimant'’s Appeal.
The statute provides that general appraisers of merchandise “may he removed from office at any time by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’’ The Secretary of the Treasury informs an. appraiser that “the President deems it his duty to make some changes in the personnel of the board,” and requests his resignation. The appraiser refuses and demands a copy of any charges preferred against him and an opportunity to be heard in his own defense. The President thereupon removes him from office and appoints - his successor, who is subsequently confirmed by the Senate. The claimant sues for the salary of the office.
The court below decides:
1. The act 10th June, 1890 (26 Stat. L., p. 136, sec. 12), provides the general appraisers of merchandise shall he appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and that they “may be removed from office at any time by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The method of ascertaining such causes is within the discretion of the President and no legal liability attaches to the Government for the failure of the. President to assign the particular statutory cause for which he removes an appraiser.
2. Where the record shows that the President deemed it his duty to make changes in the board, the court must assume that the changes were such as were prescribed by law and that the President was guided by the statute prescribing the grounds upon which the officer might be removed.
The. decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Peckham
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 6, 1903.