Preston v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 January 1888 |
| Citation | 37 F. 417 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
| Parties | PRESTON v. UNITED STATES. |
Quarles & Guffin, for plaintiff.
M. E Benton, for the United States.
This is an action to recover compensation for plaintiff's services as crier of the district court and circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Missouri. The petition alleges that the plaintiff, under proper appointment, performed services as crier of said courts, on certain days between the 2d day of January, 1886, and the filing of this petition on the 23d day of May, 1888; and that the aggregate of his per diem amounts to $438, for which he asks judgment. The court finds the facts to be substantially as follows: That from the 2d day of January, 1886, up to the time of the institution of this suit, the plaintiff performed the duties in said courts of messenger, from which he received from the government a per diem compensation of two dollars; that during this same period, under appointment by the court, he also performed the duties of crier of said courts, during their sessions from January 2, 1886, up to the 23d day of May, 1888. The answer alleges, and the court finds the facts to be, that for the services thus rendered as crier the plaintiff was paid by the government up to February 8 1886, since which time the comptroller of the treasury department has rejected the claims for such compensation on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the two services of messenger and crier. As to so much of the claim as precedes the 3d day of March 1887, the court holds that it has not jurisdiction over the subject-matter, as by the proviso of section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, conferring jurisdiction on this court over such actions, the court cannot hear and determine such claims 'which have heretofore been rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same. ' It has been expressly held by Judge BREWER in Bliss v. U.S., 34 F. 781 followed by WEBB, J., in Rand v. U.S., 36 F. 671 that the comptroller of the treasury having charge of the adjustment of accounts against the government, a rejection of an account by him is, in contemplation of said proviso, a rejection by a department authorized to hear and determine the same. It being conceded at the hearing that so much of the plaintiff's claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wimberly v. Deacon
... ... similar to those in constitutions of other states, it will be ... presumed that the framers of the constitution were conversant ... with, and ... 5. A ... reserve officer in the Army of the United States, who has ... been called into active military service as a commissioned ... officer for ... unless they are incompatible. Preston v. United States, ... D.C., 37 F. 417. Offices are said to be incompatible ... when their duties ... ...
-
Olcott v. Hoff
...to the salary which otherwise would have been paid to the elected governor had he survived, the rule is well stated in Preston v. United States (D. C.) 37 F. 417, 418, "If there be no incompatibility between the respective duties of the two offices or employments, and the functions of each ......
-
Harmon v. United States
...maintained, on fuller consideration, by the district court in Connecticut, in Georgia, and in Illinois. Stanton v. U.S., Id. 252; Erwin v. U.S., Id. 470; v. U.S., 38 F. 542. The earlier decisions are based upon section 269 of the Revised Statutes, by which it is made the duty of the first c......
-
State of Wyoming ex rel. Chatterton v. Grant
...11 Ore., 389; State ex rel. Sadler v. Lagrave, 23 Nev. 216; U. S. v. Saunders, 120 U.S. 594; U. S. v. Brindle, 110 U.S. 688; Preston v. U.S. 37 F. 417; Converse U.S. 21 How. (U.S.), 463; State ex rel. v. Sadler, 47 P. 450; State v. Roddle, 81 N. W., 980 (S. D.); State ex rel. v. Walker, 97 ......