Fairchild v. United States
| Decision Date | 18 January 1899 |
| Citation | 91 F. 297 |
| Parties | FAIRCHILD v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
J Kearny Rice, for the motion.
Robert D. Benedict, opposed.
By the second section of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the government of the United States,' approved March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 505, c. 359; 1 Supp.Rev.St. (2d Ed.)p. 559), the circuit court of the United States was given concurrent jurisdiction with the court of claims to hear and determine the following matters; 'All claims founded upon the constitution of the United States or any law of congress except pensions or upon any regulation of an executive department or upon any contract expressed or implied with the government of the United States or for damages liquidated or unliquidated in cases not sounding in tort in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States either in court of law or equity or admiralty were the United States suable,'-- provided the amount of the claim exceeded $1,000. Under the authority so conferred, this suit was brought to recover fees said to be due the plaintiff as an officer of the United States. While the action was still pending and undetermined by an act entitled 'An act to amend sections 1 and 2 of the act of March 3, 1887, c. 359' (Acts 1898, c. 503), it was enacted 'that section 2 of the act aforesaid * * * be and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto at the end thereof the following: 'The jurisdiction hereby conferred upon said circuit and district courts shall not extend to cases to recover fees, salary or compensation for official services of officers of the United States or brought for such purposes by persons claiming as such officers or as assignees or legal representatives thereof.' ' If we read together the original act and the amendment, it becomes clear that the intent of congress by the amendment of 1898 was to limit the jurisdiction which it had conferred upon the district and circuit courts by the act of 1887. Instead of having, as theretofore, concurrent jurisdiction with the court of claims as to all matters named in section 1 of the act of 1887, cases brought to recover fees, salaries, or compensation for official services of officers of the United States were to be excepted. To them the jurisdiction should no longer extend. It is a withdrawal of authority for the courts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. United States
...Wisconsin, 1880, 103 U.S. 5, 26 L.Ed. 302; also, Auffmordt v. Hedden, 1890, 137 U.S. 310, 11 S.Ct. 103, 34 L.Ed. 674; Fairchild v. United States, C.C.N.J., 1899, 91 F. 297; also United States v. McCrory, 5 Cir., 1899, 91 F. 295, citing with approval the Hartwell and Germaine cases, In Crens......
-
Hawthorne v. Fisher
...Wisconsin, 1880, 103 U.S. 5, 26 L.Ed. 302; also, Auffmordt v. Hedden, 1890, 137 U.S. 310, 11 S.Ct. 103, 34 L.Ed. 674; Fairchild v. United States, C.C.N.J., 1899, 91 F. 297; United States v. McCrory, 5 Cir., 1899, 91 F. Respectable cases have voided and criticised such efforts to make use of......
-
Republic Underwriters v. Ford
...349; Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction, 2nd Ed. Sec. 285 pp. 550-554; United States v. Kelly, 9 Cir., 97 F. 460; Fairchild v. United States, C. C., 91 F. 297; In re Hall, 167 U.S. 38, 17 S.Ct. 723, 42 L.Ed. 69. Cf. Smallwood v. Gallardo, 275 U.S. 56, 48 S.Ct. 23, 72 L. Ed. In so conc......
-
Baskins v. United States
...1880, 103, U.S. 5, 26 L.Ed. 302; also, Auffmordt v. Hedden, 1890, 137 U.S. 310, 11 S.Ct. 103, 34 L.Ed. 674; Fairchild v. United States, C.C.N.J., 1899, 91 F. 297; also United States v. McCrory, 5 Cir., 1899, 91 F. 295, citing with approval the Hartwell and Germaine cases, In 1904 the questi......