The decision of the Court of Claims awarding, on the motion of
the United States, a new trial, while a claim is pending before it,
or on appeal from it, or within two years next after the final
disposition of such claim, cannot be reviewed here.
A judgment was rendered in this case by the Court of Claims, May
15, 1874, from which the United States took an appeal to this
Court. On the 5th of May, 1876, while that appeal was pending, the
United States moved the Court of Claims for a new trial, under the
provisions of sec. 1088, Rev.Stat. The motion was as follows:
"And now comes the Attorney General in behalf of the United
States, and moves the court to grant the United States a new trial
in the above-stated case, lately decided in this court, and that an
order may be made staying the payment of the judgment so rendered
in favor of said Alexander Collie, the said claimant. And the
Attorney General herewith submits to the court in support of this
motion the affidavits of sundry witnesses taken abroad by the
counsel of the United States, and certain papers and documents duly
proved and verified, which the United States, by its Attorney
General, says have been discovered and obtained since the trial of
the case, and which evidence the United States, by its Attorney
General, insists should satisfy the court that fraud, wrong, and
injustice have been done to the United States by the recovery by
said Collie of said judgment."
Upon the hearing of this motion a new trial was granted. The
United States then came to this court, and moved to dismiss their
appeal. This motion was resisted by the then appellee, who asked
that a writ of certiorari might issue to bring here the proceedings
of the Court of Claims in granting the new trial. This application
was denied, and the appeal dismissed. Afterwards, the Court of
Claims reheard the cause, and gave judgment for the United States.
From that judgment this appeal was taken, and the transcript of the
record sent here contains the motion of the United States for the
new trial and action of the court thereon, but not the affidavits
filed in
Page 95 U. S. 642
support of or in opposition to the motion. The appellant now
moves for a writ of certiorari to bring here these affidavits, with
the papers and documents appended thereto.
Sec. 1088 of the Revised Statutes is in these words:
"The Court of Claims, at any time while any claim is pending
before it, or on appeal from it, or within two years next after the
final disposition of such claim, may, on motion on behalf of the
United States, grant a new trial, and stay the payment of any
judgment therein upon such evidence, cumulative or otherwise, as
shall satisfy the court that any fraud, wrong, or injustice in the
premises has been done to the United States."
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under the Act of June 23, 1868, 15 Stat. 75, reenacted in sec.
1008, Rev.Stat., it was said, in
Ex Parte
Russell, 13 Wall. 664, that to justify the grant of
a new trial
"a new case must be made -- a case involving fraud or other
wrong practiced upon the government. It is analogous to the case of
a bill of review in chancery to set aside a former decree or a bill
impeaching a decree for fraud."
This remark of the judge, in the argument of the opinion, is to
be construed in connection with the particular objection to the
jurisdiction of the Court of Claims he was then considering, which
was "that the granting of a new trial after a decision by this
court is, in effect, an appeal from the decision of this court."
This, he said, "would be so, if it were granted upon the same case
presented to us; but it is not. A new case must be made,"
&c.
When this case was before us at the last term, upon the
application for the writ of certiorari to bring up the proceedings
of the Court of Claims in granting the new trial, it was contended
that the court had proceeded "without jurisdiction, power, or
authority," and, in denying the writ, we said,
"the proceedings under which the new trial was obtained are now
part of the record below, and, after judgment is finally rendered,
may be brought here by appeal for review."
United
Page 95 U. S. 643
States v. Young, 94 U. S. 258. They
are now here, and the record, instead of showing that the court did
not have jurisdiction to proceed, shows affirmatively that it had.
The motion, as made, brings the case directly within the statute.
That being so, the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court,
which alone we were then considering, is answered. A case having
been made upon the record, such as would justify its interference,
that court had the right to hear the evidence, and decide. Over its
decision within that jurisdiction we have no control, for the
statute has not provided an appeal. The new trial is to be granted
if the evidence submitted, whether cumulative or otherwise, is
sufficient to satisfy that court "that fraud, wrong, or injustice
had been done to the United States." The act was passed for the
protection of the United States. It constitutes one of the
conditions which Congress has seen fit to attach to the grant of a
right to sue the United States. The suitor cannot complain, for he
accepted this condition of the jurisdiction when he commenced his
suit. If the record showed affirmatively that the Court of Claims
had granted a new trial after the term at which the judgment was
rendered, under circumstances which gave it no jurisdiction -- as,
for instance, after the expiration of two years from the final
disposition of the claim, or for some cause not within the
provisions of the statute -- a different case would be made from
that which is here now, and one which it will be time enough to
consider when it arises. We are all of the opinion that the
decision of the Court of Claims, upon a motion by the United
States, within the prescribed jurisdiction, is conclusive, and not
subject to review. The claimant must rely upon his appeal from the
final judgment upon the merits for protection against wrong under
this form of proceeding.
Motion denied.
