United States v. Saunders

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRADLEY
Citation22 L.Ed. 736,22 Wall. 492,89 U.S. 492
PartiesUNITED STATES v. SAUNDERS
Decision Date01 October 1874

89 U.S. 492
22 L.Ed. 736
22 Wall. 492
UNITED STATES
v.
SAUNDERS.
October Term, 1874

APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus:

On the 28th of July, 1866, Congress enacted:1

'That there be allowed and paid to the officers, clerks, committee clerks, messengers, and all other employees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and to the Globe and official reporters of each House, and the stenographer of the House, and to the Capitol police, and the three superintendents of the public gardens, their clerks and assistants, and to the Librarian, assistant librarians, messengers, and other employees of the Congressional Library, an addition of twenty per cent. on their present pay, to commence with the present Congress.'

This act was repealed July 12th, 1870.

By a joint resolution of the 28th of February following, it was resolved2——

Page 493

'That there shall be allowed and paid to . . . its civil officers, clerks, messengers, and watchmen and employees in the executive mansion, and in any of the following named departments, or any bureau thereof, to wit: State, Treasury, War, Navy, Interior, Post Office, Attorney-General, Agricultural, and including civil officers and . . . clerks and employees in the office of the coast survey, naval observatory, navy-yard, arsenal, paymastergeneral, &c., & c., and additional compensation of twenty per cent. on their respective salaries as fixed by law, &c., . . . for one year.'

With these two proceedings of Congress, the act of 1866 and the joint resolution of 1870 in force, one Saunders, who was engaged at a salary in superintending the public gardens of the Department of Agriculture, at Washington, applied and got an addition of 20 per cent. to it under the joint resolution, for the one year, during which the resolution gave the increase.

Subsequently, assuming that the act of Congress was a continuing act and not one making an allowance for one year only, and assuming also that his employment brought him within its provisions, he filed a petition in the Court of Claims, alleging that he was 'Superintendent of Gardens in the Department of Agriculture,' from March 4th, 1865, to July 1st, 1870, and asking the addition of 20 per cent. given by the act of Congress during that time.

The Court of Claims found as a fact that 'he held the position and performed the duties of Superintendent of the Public Gardens of the Department of Agriculture,' and during the time for which the 20 per cent. was claimed; and conceiving that he came within the act, gave him the addition prayed for.

From this, its decision, the United States appealed.

The only question considered by this court was whether Saunders was within the act of Congress.

Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. John Goforth, for the appellant; Mr. J. W. Denver, contra.

Page 494

Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

We are clearly of opinion that the claimant, in this case, was not within the intent and meaning of the eighteenth section of the act of July 28th, 1866.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Bank v. Earth Foods Inc., No. 107682.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Octubre 2010
    ...the Court held that an indorser is not a surety within the meaning of the Arkansas statute. Ross, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) at 594, 22 L.Ed. at 736. Our construction of the Sureties Act is consistent with Ross. We acknowledge that the appellate court gave two other bases for its holding: (1) that ......
  • Baxter v. McGee, No. 10383.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 30 Marzo 1936
    ...462, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226), the source in previous legislation of the particular provision in question (United States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L.Ed. 736; Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U.S. 707, 7 S. Ct. 962, 30 L.Ed. 776; United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69......
  • United States v. Katz United States v. Feuerstein, Nos. 726
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1926
    ...386, 2 L. Ed. 304; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631, 4 L. Ed. 471; Holy Trinity Church v. United States, States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L. Ed. 226), the source in previous legislation of the particular provision in question (United Seates v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L. Ed.......
  • Rockefeller v. O'Brien, 274.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 13 Mayo 1915
    ...* * * may be referred to in order to discern the intent of the Legislature in the use of particular terms. ' United States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 736; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162, 20 L.Ed. 566. City of Cincinnati v. Connor, 55 Ohio St. 89, 44 N.E. 582: 'It is an * * * established ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Bank v. Earth Foods Inc., No. 107682.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Octubre 2010
    ...the Court held that an indorser is not a surety within the meaning of the Arkansas statute. Ross, 89 U.S. (22 Wall.) at 594, 22 L.Ed. at 736. Our construction of the Sureties Act is consistent with Ross. We acknowledge that the appellate court gave two other bases for its holding: (1) that ......
  • Baxter v. McGee, No. 10383.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 30 Marzo 1936
    ...462, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226), the source in previous legislation of the particular provision in question (United States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L.Ed. 736; Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U.S. 707, 7 S. Ct. 962, 30 L.Ed. 776; United States v. Morrow, 266 U.S. 531, 535, 45 S.Ct. 173, 69......
  • United States v. Katz United States v. Feuerstein, Nos. 726
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1926
    ...386, 2 L. Ed. 304; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 610, 631, 4 L. Ed. 471; Holy Trinity Church v. United States, States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L. Ed. 226), the source in previous legislation of the particular provision in question (United Seates v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 L. Ed.......
  • Rockefeller v. O'Brien, 274.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 13 Mayo 1915
    ...* * * may be referred to in order to discern the intent of the Legislature in the use of particular terms. ' United States v. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492, 22 736; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 162, 20 L.Ed. 566. City of Cincinnati v. Connor, 55 Ohio St. 89, 44 N.E. 582: 'It is an * * * established ......
  • 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