A rule of the Court of Claims requiring parties to present their
claims to an executive department before suing in that court is
unauthorized and void.
Clyde, the claimant in the preceding case, presented his
petition in that court, the same petition mentioned in that case,
claiming by the second count of it compensation for the use of his
barge
William Hunt, as he had in the former appeal,
claimed by the first count, compensation for the use of the
Tallacca.
The Court of Claims dismissed the claim on the ground that it
was not presented in conformity with a rule of practice which the
court then had, but which has since been abrogated. This rule
required that where the case was such as is ordinarily settled in
any executive department, the petition should show that application
for its allowance had been made to that department, and without
success, and its decision thereon.
From the action of the court, Clyde, the claimant, appealed to
this Court.
Page 80 U. S. 30
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
However useful and proper such a rule as that complained of by
the appellant may have been prior to the enactment of the law
passed June 25, 1868,
* which requires the
Attorney General to obtain from the proper department, and the
department to furnish, such facts, circumstances, and evidence as
it might be in possession of in relation to any claim prosecuted in
the Court of Claims, we are of opinion that it was not competent
for the Court of Claims to impose it as a condition of presenting a
claim in that court. Instead of being a rule of practice, it was
really an additional restriction to the exercise of jurisdiction by
that court. It required the claimant to do what the acts giving the
court jurisdiction did not require him to do before it would assume
jurisdiction of his case.
The act of 1855, which created the court, declares that it
shall
"hear and determine all claims founded upon any law of Congress,
or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any
contract, express or implied, with the government of the United
States, which may be suggested to it by a petition filed
therein."
The rule adopted by the court required that the claimant should
not only have such a claim as stated in the act, but should have
first gone through the department which might have entertained it,
before he would be permitted to prosecute in that court. This was
establishing a jurisdictional requirement which Congress alone had
the power to establish.
This judgment of dismissal is therefore reversed and the
record remitted with directions to proceed to a hearing on the
second count.
* 15 Stat. at Large 76.