Margolin v. United States, 254

Decision Date16 November 1925
Docket NumberNo. 254,254
Citation269 U.S. 93,46 S.Ct. 64,70 L.Ed. 176
PartiesMARGOLIN v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Act Sept. 2, 1914, § 13, as added by Act Oct. 6, 1917, § 2, and amended by Act May 20, 1918, § 1 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 514kk), providing for Bureau of War Risk Insurance, as already amended by Act June 12, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 514a-514i), providing that payment to attorney for assistance in preparing an execution of papers necessary in presenting claim to Bureau of War Risk Insurance or Veterans' Bureau, its successor, under Act Aug. 9, 1921, § 3 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 967 1/4 b), should not exceed $3, is not limited in its application solely to clerical work and filling out forms or affidavits of claim, so as to permit an additional charge for useful investigation and preparatory work.

Miss Susan Brandeis and Mr. Benjamin S. Kirsh, both of New York City, for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 93-95 intentionally omitted] Mr. Assistant Attorney General Donovan, for the United States.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

An act of Congress approved September 2, 1914 (38 Stat. 711, c. 293 (Comp. St. §§ 514a-514j)), provided for a Bureau of War Risk Insurance in the Treasury Department, directed it to insure American vessels, their freight, passage money, and cargoes against war risks, and further authorized it to prescribe necessary rules and regulations. This was amended by Act June 12, 1917, c. 26, 40 Stat. 102 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 514a-514i), so as to provide insurance for masters, officers and crews of American vessels; and the following new section was added:

'Sec. 5a. No claim agent or attorney shall be entitled to receive any compensation whatever for services in the collection of claims against the Bureau of War Risk Insurance for death, personal injury, or detention, except when proceedings are taken in accordance with section five in a district court of the United States, in which case the judge shall, as a part of his determination and order, settle and determine the amount of compensation not to exceed ten per centum of amount recovered, to be paid by the claimant on behalf of whom such proceedings are instituted to his legal adviser or advisers, and it shall be unlawful for any lawyer or other person acting in that behalf to ask for, contract for, or receive any larger sum than the amount so fixed.' Section 514ee.

An act approved October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 398, c. 105 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 514a et seq.)), again amended the original act, provided for Divisions of Marine and Seamen's Insurance and of Military and Naval Insurance, made definite provision for insuring members of the military and naval forces, and added another new section:

'Sec. 13. That the director, subject to the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall administer, execute, and enforce the provisions of this act, and for that purpose have full power and authority to make rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, necessary or appropriate to carry out its purposes, and shall decide all questions arising under the act, except as otherwise provided in sections five and four hundred and five. Wherever under any provision or provisions of the act regulations are directed or authorized to be made, such regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, shall or may be made by the director, subject to the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The director shall adopt reasonable and proper rules to govern the procedure of the divisions, to regulate the matter of the compensation, if any, but in no case to exceed ten per centum, to be paid to claim agents and attorneys for services in connection with any of the matters provided for in articles two, three, and four, and to regulate and provide for the nature and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing the same in order to establish the right to benefits of allowance, allotment, compensation, or insurance provided for in this act, the forms of application of those claiming to be entitled to such benefits, the method of making investigations and medical examinations, and the manner and form of adjudications and awards.' Section 514kk.

An act approved May 20, 1918 (40 Stat. 555, c. 77, § 1 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 514kk)), amended section 13, above quoted, so that it should provide:

'Sec. 13. That the director, subject to the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall administer, execute, and enforce the provisions of this act, and for that purpose have full power and authority to make rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, necessary or appropriate to carry out its purposes, and shall decide all questions arising under the act, except as otherwise provided in section five. Wherever under any provision or provisions of the act regulations are directed or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Walters
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • June 12, 1984
    ...had already been decided against plaintiffs: Hines v. Lowrey, 305 U.S. 85, 59 S.Ct. 31, 83 L.Ed. 56 (1938); Margolin v. United States, 269 U.S. 93, 46 S.Ct. 64, 70 L.Ed. 176 (1925); Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 40 S.Ct. 474, 64 L.Ed. 843 (1920); Hoffmaster v. Veterans Administration, 44......
  • Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1934
    ...Moyers, 253 U.S. 182, 40 S.Ct. 478, 64 L.Ed. 849; Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540, 45 S.Ct. 399, 69 L.Ed. 775; Margolin v. United States, 269 U.S. 93, 46 S.Ct. 64, 70 L.Ed. 176. A stockyards corporation, 'while not a common carrier, nor engaged in any distinctively public employment, is doin......
  • Roa v. Lodi Medical Group, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1985
    ...586, 588-589, 39 L.Ed. 657; Yeiser v. Dysart (1925) 267 U.S. 540, 541, 45 S.Ct. 399, 69 L.Ed.2d 775; Margolin v. United States (1925) 269 U.S. 93, 102, 46 S.Ct. 64, 65, 70 L.Ed. 176, Estate of Goodrich (1907) 6 Cal.App. 730, 732, 93 P. 121.) These decisions establish that--contrary to amici......
  • St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. v. Stuart
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1935
    ... ... and being maintained under and by virtue of the laws of the United States prescribing the liability of common carriers by railroad while ... Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 61 Okla. 146160160 160 P. 736; Pryor v. Williams, 254 U.S. 43, 65 L. Ed. 120. 35 But such employee does not assume extraordinary ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT