United States v. Meigs
| Decision Date | 01 October 1877 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 578,95 U.S. 748 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MEIGS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
Mr. A. G. Riddle and Mr. Francis Miller, contra.
Of the appellees, one was a deputy-clerk of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, another was the crier of that court, and two others were messengers. They each sued in the Court of Claims to recover the additional compensation allowed to certain employees of the government by the joint resolution of Congress of Feb. 28, 1867. 14 Stat. 569.
The Court of Claims finds the above facts, and while it says, in what purports to be an opinion, that it believes that the resolution refers to clerks and employees of the executive branches of the government alone, and does not extend to those of the judiciary, it nevertheless renders a judgment for the claimants.
We concur with the Court of Claims in the opinion that the resolution does not extend to the officers and employees of the judicial department of the government, and though in some instances it may not be easy to say to which department a claimant may belong, we have no difficulty in holding that each of the present claimants belongs to that department.
The deputy-clerk, Meigs, whose case is the principal one, was appointed by the clerk of the court, and the latter was appointed by the court. The deputy served at a salary fixed by contract between him and the clerk. He was also paid by the clerk, and worked for the clerk, and performed services which it was the duty of the clerk to perform, and for which the clerk received compensation by fees paid by the litigants for whom those services were rendered. It is very difficult to see how this deputy-clerk can be called an employ e of the government at all. The government was never liable to him for any salary at any time, and, if the principal clerk had failed to pay him the $2,000, the government clearly would not have been liable for it. How, then, can it be liable for the additional twenty per cent?
Mulloy, the crier, and Taylor and Grimes, the messengers, were employees of the court,—the first appointed by the court and the others by the marshal, to perform services immediately in connection with the court and its judges; and, if employees of the government at all, they certainly belong to the judicial department, and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lavagnino v. Uhlig
...originally or upon default of the applicant who engaged his services, he does not sustain that relation to the Government. United States v. Meigs, 95 U.S. 748; Gilmore v. Simpson, 16 L. D. The prohibition of section 452 applies to "officers, clerks and employees in the General Land Office,"......
-
United States v. McDonald
...either express or implied, with the United States, in virtue of which they can maintain suit in the execution of process.' In U.S. v. Meiggs, 95 U.S. 748, the court had consideration the question whether a deputy clerk was entitled to the 20 per cent. additional compensation granted by the ......
-
Powell v. United States
...the contract creates, so as to enable him to sue or be sued upon it.' The supreme court of the United States said in the case of U.S. v. Meigs, 95 U.S. 748, where the court was considering a claim of a deputy clerk of the United States court: 'It is very difficult to see how this deputy cle......
-
Ex parte Burdell
...a private arrangement with him. These clerks have no claim on the government at all for pay, and look entirely to the marshal. U.S. v. Meigs, 95 U.S. 748. When selects or dismisses his clerks the marshal neither consults the court, reports his action to the court, nor seeks any confirmation......