United States v. Alonzo Van Duzee
| Decision Date | 28 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 604,604 |
| Citation | 185 U.S. 278,46 L.Ed. 909,22 S.Ct. 648 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt. , v. ALONZO J. VAN DUZEE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims entered in favor of the appellee (claimant below) for the sum of $993. 35 Ct. Cl. 214. The conclusion of law by which the court determined that judgment ought to be entered against the United States was based upon the following:
'Finding of Facts.
'I. The claimant, Alonzo J. Van Duzee, was clerk of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa from August, 1882, to December 31, 1897, duly qualified and acting.
II. During said period he made up his accounts United States, and presented the same, duly verified, to the United States court for approval in the presence of the district attorney, and orders approving the same as being just and according to law were entered of record. Said accounts were then presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for payment. In the settlement of the account from July 1, 1897, to September 30, 1897, part was paid, but payment of services embraced in Finding III. was refused.
'III. Item 1. For filing and entering 9,930 separate and dis- tinct records and other official papers appertaining to the offices of commissioners of the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa, which were deposited by said commissioners under the act of May 28, 1896, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for said district, at 10 cents each as follows:
(a) Dockets and records, 16.................................. $1.60
(b) Information or complaints, 2,997....................... 299.70
(c) Warrants, 1,984......................................... 198.40
(d) Subpoenas, 1,899........................................ 189.90
(e) Documentary testimony, 446............................... 44.60
(f) Bonds, 649............................................... 64.90
(g) Affidavits, 445.......................................... 44.50
(h) Mittimus, 446............................................ 44.60
(i) Search Warrants, 22....................................... 2.20
(j) Applications for discharge of poor convicts, 587......... 58.70
(k) Oaths for discharge as poor convicts, 232................ 23.20
(l) Mandates to jailer for discharge as poor convicts, 169... 16.90
(m) Applications for seaman's wages, 24....................... 2.40
(n) Summons on applications for seaman's wages, 13............ 1.30
(o) Praecipe, 1................................................ .10
---------
$993 00
'IV. During the period when the aforesaid services were rendered, it was the settled practice under the verbal orders of the court for the clerk to file all papers sent up by the commissioners in said district; and by a written rule of court entered of record, it was made the duty of the clerk in cases wherein the commissioner held the defendant to appear at court to file the papers and transcripts sent up by the commissioner, and to forthwith enter the case on the docket, which rule is as follows:
'The aforesaid services were performed in compliance with said practice and rule of court.'
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. Philip M. Ashford for appellant.
Mr. Charles C. Lancaster for appellee.
Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
The question involves the construction of a portion of § 19 of the act of Congress of May 28, 1896 (29 Stat. at L. 184, chap. 252), which reads as follows:
'That the terms of office of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dalton v. Fabius River Drainage Dist.
... ... code unto itself and determines jurisdiction. (3) Count V ... states facts entitling plaintiff to have defendants enjoined ... from collecting ... ...
-
Ward v. United States
...82, 29 S.Ct. 576, 53 L.Ed. 919; Bartlett v. United States, 1905, 197 U.S. 230, 25 S.Ct. 433, 49 L.Ed. 735; United States v. Van Duzee, 1902, 185 U.S. 278, 22 S.Ct. 648, 46 L.Ed. 909; Glavey v. United States, 1901, 182 U.S. 595, 21 S.Ct. 891, 45 L.Ed. 1247; United States v. Matthews, 1899, 1......
-
Dalton v. Fabius River Drainage District
...open to equitable construction, nor to any discretionary action on the part of the officials. 43 Am. Juris., p. 360, sec. 359; U.S. v. VanDugee, 185 U.S. 278; U.S. v. Shields, 153 U.S. 88, 91. (3) All statutes providing compensation for a public officer must be strictly construed, and the o......
-
Berkshire County v. Cande
...the decision of Mulcrevy v. San Francisco, does control the disposition of these fees. As was said in United States v. Van Duzee, 185 U. S. 278, 281, 22 Sup. Ct. 648, 650 (46 L. Ed. 909), quoting from United States v. Shields, 153 U. S. 88, 91, 14 Sup. Ct. 735, 38 L. Ed. 645: ‘Fees allowed ......