Hill v. United States

• Decision Date: 21 November 1889
• Citation: 40 F. 441
• Parties: HILL v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

40 F. 441

HILL v. UNITED STATES.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

November 21, 1889

John Lowell and Lewis S. Dabney, for plaintiff.

Owen A Galvin, U.S. Atty.

Before Colt and NELSON, JJ.

Nelson J.

This is a suit to recover of the United States fees earned by the plaintiff as clerk of the district court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts. At the hearing the following facts were either admitted or proved, and are found by the court:

The plaintiff was appointed clerk of the United States district court for the district of Massachusetts on the 5th day of February, 1879, and duly qualified as such, and gave the necessary bond, and held said office until the 1st day of January, 1888. The plaintiff has transmitted to the attorney general, for each half year while he held said office, a return of the fees and emoluments of said office, verified by oath in the form authorized and required by the attorney general, and on blanks furnished by the department of justice, in which the fees and emoluments earned from the United States, from individuals, and in bankruptcy, have been stated, as likewise his office expenses, with accompanying vouchers, which returns were in each case duly certified by the judge of the United States district court, for the district of Massachusetts, in the manner required and the language set forth in said blank-accounts. The plaintiff has likewise forwarded to the first auditor of the treasury an abstract of compensation due him from government cases and for attendance in court in each half year, with the accompanying vouchers, which abstract was in each case formally proved by him in open court in the presence of the attorney of the United States for the district, as required by law, and was duly allowed by said court, and was duly audited and referred by the auditor to the first comptroller of the treasury. At the May term, 1885, of this court, the United States, by writ dated December 4, 1884, brought an action on his official bond against the plaintiff and his surety, in which the alleged breach of said bond was 'that the said Hill has not properly accounted for all moneys coming into his hands as required by law, according to the condition of said bond. ' This cause was heard by the court on an agreed statement of facts, and on November 14 1885, the judgment of said court was rendered therein for the defendant. This judgment was, on writ of error sued out by the United States, affirmed by the supreme court. The decision of the circuit court is reported, 25 F. 375, and that of the supreme court is reported, 120 U.S. 169, 7 S.Ct 510.

At the May term, 1887, of this court, the United States, by writ dated April 29, 1887, brought a second action on his official bond against the plaintiff and his surety, in which the alleged breach of said bond was that 'the said Hill has not properly accounted for all moneys coming into his hands as required by law, according to the condition of said bond. ' A trial was had to a jury therein, who rendered a verdict for the defendant, on which judgment for the defendant was given by the court, August 24, 1887. A writ of error sued out by the United States to the said circuit court on this judgment was by the supreme court dismissed. The decision of the supreme court is reported, 123 U.S. 681, 8 S.Ct. 308. In both these cases the breach alleged was that plaintiff had not accounted for fees earned in the naturalization of aliens. The fees earned by the plaintiff from the United States in government cases, and for attendance in court, amount, for the following half years, to the following sums:

For the half year ending June 30, 1883, . . . $1,116 85

For the half year ending June 30, 1884, . . . 1,384 37

For the half year ending December 31, 1884, . . . 1,411 92

For the half year ending June 30, 1885, . . . 1,064 70

For the half year ending December 31, 1885, . . . 991 42

For the half year ending June 30, 1886, . . . 1,129 96

For the half year ending December 31, 1886, . . . 822 11

For the half year ending June 30, 1887, . . . 1,166 37

For the half year ending December 31, 1887, . . . 1,097 27 -- amounting in the whole to $10,184.97, of which no part has been paid to him. The sum which remains in each of said years, from 1883 to 1887, inclusive, after deducting the plaintiff's necessary office expenses and necessary clerk hire allowed by the attorney general from the total amount of fees and emoluments earned by the plaintiff, and returned by him in his said emolument returns to the attorney general, including the said sums earned and due to him from the said United States, is less than $3,500. For the year 1887, the sum which remains after deducting the plaintiff's necessary office expenses and necessary clerk hire, at the rate allowed by the attorney general, from the total amount of fees and emoluments earned by said plaintiff, and returned by him in his said emolument returns to the attorney general, including the said sums of $1,166.37 and $1,097.27 earned and due to him from the said United States, which fees and emoluments and returns do not include any fees earned from the naturalization of aliens, is the sum of $1,178.71. The fees which the defendant claims the plaintiff is by the laws of the United States authorized to charge for the naturalization of aliens, and for which the defendant claims the plaintiff is therefore by law bound to account to the said United States, amounted for said year 1887 to $2,482. This sum, added to the other fees and emoluments received by the plaintiff, would, if he recovers from the defendant the sums earned by him from said defendant, give the plaintiff, after deducting his necessary office expenses and clerk hire, a sum exceeding $3,500 by $160.71, and the plaintiff consents that the said sum of $160.71 may be deducted from the sums earned by him from the defendant in said year 1887, or may be set off against the sum which the court shall find he is entitled to recover.

The plaintiff's claim has never been rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same. The only objection made by the accounting officers of the treasury department to the plaintiff's accounts was that they did not include fees earned in naturalization cases, and no other objection was made to them at the hearing before this court, and it was conceded by the defendant that in all other respects the accounts were correctly stated. The defendant excepted to the jurisdiction of the court upon the ground that the plaintiff's claim exceeded $10,000, within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1887. (24 St. 505.) But, as the plaintiff in his petition limited his claim to $10,000, and expressly waived all right to recover a larger sum, the court overruled the exception, and decided that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.

The defendant at the hearing made the following offer of proof:

'The defendant offers to prove that the said Hill has received during his tenure of office large sums of money, as the ordinary and usual fees, from the application of foreigners to be naturalized in the district court of which he was the clerk, and for the issuance of certain certificates of naturalization; for the filing of papers, the administration of oaths, and for other official acts required by law in the naturalization, in due manner, of foreigners. That the said Hill in the proceedings used the official seal of the court, administered oaths as clerk of said court, filed the papers as such, and performed all the acts necessary to make legal such naturalization as such clerk, and that the fees received by said Hill in naturalization cases were so received by him in the usual and with the use of records and machinery of the office. That the clerks in nearly all the district courts, and, in the circuits, the clerks of the circuit courts, have always included fees received by them in naturalization cases in their accounts rendered to the defendant. That the secretary of the interior, as long as such judicial accounts were under his official control, always, when the matter was brought to his attention, insisted upon said clerks so doing. That, since such accounts were transferred to the department of justice, similar

...