Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Dismuke v. United States — Opinion of the Court

We are of the opinion that a field deputy United States marshal from 1895 to 1902 was not an employee of the United States within the meaning of the Retirement Act. Before the Act of May 28, 1896, c. 252, 29 Stat. 140, 181, United States marshals were authorized to appoint deputy marshals, removable from office by the district judge or by the circuit court, R.S. § 780 (see 28 U.S.C.A. § 493) , who were to be paid a 'proper' allowance not to exceed three-fourths of the fees earned by them.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Dismuke v. United States — Opinion of the Court

About June 30, 1933, petitioner filed a claim with the Administration of Veterans' Affairs for allowance of an annuity under the provisions of section 8 (a) of the Civil Service Retirement Act of June 16, 1933, 48 Stat. 283, 305, 5 U.S.C.A. § 692d (now 5 U.S.C.A. § 736a) , which authorizes payment of annuities, at a specified rate, under circumstances not now material, to retired government employees in the classified civil service who have rendered at least thirty years' service.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Dismuke v. United States — Opinion of the Court

From this it is argued that the prescribed application to the Commissioner, his adjudication, and the appeal from his decision to departmental officials, afford an exclusive remedy which precludes any resort to the courts for the recovery of the annuity.
The United States is not, by the creation of claims against itself, bound to provide a remedy in the courts.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature