United States Ex Rel. Parish v. MacVeagh
Headline: Court limits the Treasury Secretary’s discretion, reverses the lower court, and directs payment to an ice contractor by requiring a fixed calculation of what he should have been paid under the contract.
Holding:
- Requires Treasury to compute and pay the contractor’s contractual balance owed.
- Limits the Secretary’s power to reopen facts or exercise broad discretion.
- Affirms using the Behan rule to calculate contract damages from Court of Claims evidence.
Summary
Background
Joseph W. Parish, an ice contractor, had a government contract later made specific for 30,000 tons of ice. He delivered 12,768 tons and bought 17,232 tons that were not accepted and were lost. The Court of Claims found Parish was ready and willing to perform. This Court previously set the appropriate rule for damages and Congress later appropriated money for part of Parish’s loss. In 1903 Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to examine Parish’s claim, apply the damages rule from United States v. Behan, use the evidence collected by the Court of Claims, and determine the balance due.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Secretary could reopen factual issues and exercise broad judgment, or whether he was required to calculate the amount Parish should have received under the contract "if carried out in full without change or default." The Court held the statute precluded relitigating whether Parish was in default and required the Secretary to assume Parish’s readiness to perform and to compute the balance under the established damages rule using the Court of Claims evidence. The Court emphasized Congress intended prompt and complete relief and did not give the Secretary discretion to make new factual findings.
Real world impact
The decision orders payment to the contractor by requiring a ministerial calculation of the balance due rather than a fresh factual inquiry. It narrows executive discretion where Congress refers a settled claim to an officer for computation, and it reverses the Court of Appeals and directs judgment for the relator.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?