
    FAIRCHILD’S CASE.
    (12 C. Cls. R., 226;
    not reported in U. S. R.)
    Samuel H. Fairchild, Appellant, v. The United States, Appellees.
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    
      The biennial readjustment of salaries talces effect on the 1st of July, in alter-nateyears. In accordance with this practice, the Postmaster-General, on June 1, 1872, readjxisted the claimant’s salary for two years to come, to go into effect on 1st July folloxoing. On the 8ih Jime the Eevised Post-Office Act is passed. It changes the allowance to postmastexs, so that they would he entitled to a larger salary if the readjustment uiex-e made under it. The Postmaster-General treats it as prospective and refuses to revise his adjustments already made. The claimant brings his action for the difference; also to recover additional salanj for am extraordinary increase in the business of his office, the-Postmasiex'-General having neglected to act in regard to it.
    
    The court helow holds: (1) That when the law constitutes the Postmaster-General sole judge to determine the compensation to he allowed to post-ters, they are without judicial redress; hut when it prescribes rules to govern his action concerning the adjustment of salaries, a postmaster may recover whatever the law declares shall he allowed to him; (2) That there are two classes of adjustments prescribed by tl\e> Revised Post- ■ OfficeJet (17 Stat. L., pin 283,295, §5 82,84). The biennial is general and mandatory; that “in special cases” is as often as the Postmaster-General “may deem expedient”; (3) That the Act of 1872 did not require a new biennial readjustment which should supersede that previously made, though not yet in operation. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
    The judgment of the court.below is affirmed, without an opinion being given by the Supreme Court.
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of tlie case:
    Tbe findings of fact in tbis case, upon which it was decided by the Supreme Court, are fully set forth in the report of the case in 12' Court of Claims Reports, 226. It is probable that the judgment was affirmed under the previous decision of the Supreme Court in McLean’s Case (ante), and not for the reasons assigned by the court below.
   The Chief Justice

announced the decision of the Supreme Court, January 29, 1878, but no opinion has since been filed.  