United States v. Harmon

• Decision Date: 16 January 1893
• Docket Number: No. 649,649
• Citation: 37 L.Ed. 164,13 S.Ct. 327,147 U.S. 268
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. HARMON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

147 U.S. 268

13 S.Ct. 327

37 L.Ed. 164

UNITED STATES

v HARMON.

No. 649.

January 16, 1893.

Sol. Gen. Aldrich and Felix Brannigan, for the United States.

E. M. Rand, for appellee.

Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maine, February 7, 1890, by Charles B. Harmon against the United States, under the act of March 3, 1887, c. 359, (24 St. p. 505,) to recover $1,770.60 as fees and disbursements of Harmon while marshal of the United States for that district, from March 9, 1886, to October 1, 1888, which were included in his account presented to the district court, proved to its satisfaction by his oath, approved by it, forwarded to the first auditor of the treasury and by him to the first comptroller, and disallowed by the latter; the items of the same being set forth in detail in schedules annexed to the petition.

The United States, by a plea in the nature of nonassumpsit, put in issue the plaintiff's right to recover. The suit, under the requirement of section 2 of the act of 1887, was tried by the court without a jury.

There was filed the following admission in writing, signed by the district attorney of the United States: 'In the above-entitled cause, it is admitted, on behalf of respondent, that the services charged in the petition and schedules were actually rendered; that the disbursements charged were actually made in lawful money; and that the sums charged as paid to witnesses were actually, and in every instance, paid upon orders issued in due form, either by court or a commissioner of the circuit court, in the respective cases.'

The case, as now presented before us, involves only items numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9, discussed in the opinion of the circuit court.

There was filed, before the hearing, an 'agreed statements of facts,' signed by the attorneys for both parties, the only parts of which that it is important to recite being as follows:

'First. As to jurisdiction:

'That, of the total amount claimed by petitioner, items amounting to $140.32 were disallowed by the first comptroller prior to March 3, 1887.

'Second. As to the items claimed:

'That they are correctly classified and set forth in the abstract of schedules annexed to brief of petitioner.

'Third. As to the several classes of claims:'

'2. Distributing venires, marshal's fees, $186.

'That, if the marshal is entitled to a fee of $2 for each venire distributed to the several constables, he is entitled to the amount claimed; but it is claimed by respondent that said amount was erroneously charged in the marshal's account as mileage, and was for that reason disallowed by the comptroller.

'3. Paid for blanks for United States attorney, $14.

'That upon requisition of the United States attorney, approved by the attorney general, this amount was paid by the marshal for blank indictments and informations for the necessary use of the United States attorney. That a similar charge has since been allowed by the comptroller.

'4. Marshal's travel to attend court, $156.60.

'That, of the amount claimed, $118.80 is for travel to attend regular terms of the circuit and district courts, and that one travel, $1.80, has been allowed and paid to the marshal for travel at each of said terms.

'That said $118.80 is charged for travel on days when said courts were held by adjournment over an intervening day, and were not held on consecutive days.

'That the remaining sum of $37.80 is charged for travel to attend 21 special courts or special terms of the district court. That the docket of the district court shows that said 21 special courts or special terms were duly held.

'5. Expenses endeavoring to arrest, $4.

'That this charge for two days at $2 was disallowed by the first comptroller solely because he claimed it was not charged in the proper account.

'6. Travel to serve precepts, $237.60.

'That in some instances the officer had in his hands for service several precepts against different persons for different causes, and made service of two or more of such precepts in the course of one trip, making but one travel to the most remote point of service, but charging full travel on each precept. The following item, viz.:

"1886, April 24. In U. S. v. Jeffrey Gerroir, travel to serve subpoena from circuit court, Massachusetts district, as Cranberry Isle, 314 miles, $18.84,' '—is suspended by comptroller because the only actual travel was from Portland to Cranberry Isle, say 206 miles. If travel, as charged, is not to be allowed, then this charge should be for 206 miles, $12.36. That in serving a warrant of removal, (in every instance within this district,) or warrant to commit, the marshal has charged travel, while the comptroller claims that, transportation of officer and prisoner being allowed, no travel can be charged.'

'9. Transporting prisoners to and from court, $78.

'That this amount was actually paid for hack hire, in accordance with the usual practice, and that the charge had always before been allowed. The comptroller claims that the amount was excessive, and the use of hacks unnecessary.'

'Fourth. As to the allegations in the petition:

'That the marshal duly rendered his accounts as stated, and that the same were duly presented to the court, and approved and forwarded to the accounting officer of the treasury, as alleged.'

The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gray and Judge Colt, Circuit Judge, and the opinion of the court was given by Mr. Justice Gray. 43 Fed. Rep. 560. The court found for the petitioner for the whole of his claim except $6.48, and rendered judgment in his favor for $1,764.12 and $59.15 costs. It also, in pursuance of section 7 of the act of 1887, specifically found the facts of the case to be as so admitted and agreed. The United States, within six months, filed a petition alleging errors and praying an appeal, which was allowed.

A material question in the case is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to pass upon those items of the claim, amounting to $140.32, which were disallowed by the first comptroller before March 3, 1887. By section 2 of the act of that date, the circuit and district courts of the United States are vested with concurrent jurisdiction (within certain limits as to amount) of all matters which, by section 1 of the act, 'the court of claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine,' including 'all claims founded upon the constitution of the United States or any law of congress, except for 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 a court of law, equity, or admiralty, if the United States were suable: provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to either of the courts herein mentioned jurisdiction to hear and determine claims growing out of the late civil war, and commonly known as 'war claims,' or to hear and determine other claims which have heretofore been rejected, or reported on adversely, by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same.'

The question is whether claims disallowed by the first comptroller prior to March 3, 1887, were claims which, under section 1 of the act of that date, had been, prior to its passage, 'rejected or reported on adversely by any court, department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same.'

It is contended for the United States that except where congress, by special law, empowers some court or executive officer to hear and determine a claim against the United States, the accounting officers of the treasury department alone have the power to hear and determine it; that, under section 236 of the Revised Statutes, 'all claims and demands, whether by the United States or against them, and all accounts whatever in which the United States are concerned, either as debtors or as creditors, shall be settled and adjusted in the department of the treasury;' that, as to marshals' accounts, their settlement and adjustment belong to the first auditor and the first comptroller alone, under sections 269 and 277 of the Revised Statutes; that, prior to the act of 1887, the only remedies existing in favor of marshals, as against the action of the accounting officers, were, in proper cases, by set-off in the circuit or district courts, or by suits in the court of claims; that prior to the establishment of the court of claims the settlement and adjustment of accounts by the accounting officers of the treasury department, and their final action on claims and accounts, were regarded by all the departments of the government as a final determination, adjustment, and adjudication of the claims and accounts so passed upon; that in respect to hearing such claims the accounting officers constituted the 'department' which heard and determined them; that their powers came within the very terms of the act of 1887; that the act of 1887 cannot be construed so as to apply only to claims determined by courts and special tribunals; that, when the accounting officers of the United States settle accounts and claims, they are authorized to hear and determine them, and to reject or report adversely such claims or items as, in their judgment, should be disallowed; and, therefore, that the claims so reported are rejected by a department authorized to hear and determine them, within the meaning of the act of 1887.

But we concur with the views of the circuit court on this point, which, in its opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Gray, are expressed as follows:

'Upon the question whether a disallowance of an account by the first comptroller of the treasury is within the latter part of this proviso, there has been a diversity...