United States v. Saunders
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 594,120 U.S. 126,7 S.Ct. 467 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SAUNDERS |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1887 |
Page 127
Atty. Gen. Garland and H. J. May, for appellant.
Van H. Manning, for ppellee.
MILLER, J.
Saunders, the appellee in this case, recovered against the United States in the court of claims a judgment for $1,627, from which the United States appealed. The recovery was for the salary of the claimant as clerk of the committee on commerce of the house of representatives, from the fourteenth day of March, 1885, to the seventh day of January, 1886, at the rate of $2,000 per annum. Mr. Saunders held this place from the first day of July, 1884, when he was appointed, up to the seventh day of January, 1886, when his successor was appointed. He was paid the compensation up to the fourteenth of March, 1885, and for the time between that and the seventh of January, 1886, the comptroller refused to pay him. The various appropriation acts, including the one which would cover the period now in question, had all made appropriations for compensation for the clerk of the committee on commerce. The ground upon which payment is resisted by the United States is that the claimant was, on the fourteenth day of March, 1885, appointed a clerk in the office of the president of the United States, since which time he has continued to perform the duties of that office, and receive its salary. The comptroller, in his decision refusing to allow the claim, places his objection upon section 1765, Rev. St. U. S., and upon the opinion of Atty. Gen. Black, in regard to extra pay and double compensation, delivered in 1857. 9 Op. Attys. Gen. 123. Section 1765 is found in immediate connection whth
Page 128
several other sections on the same subject, of which the two immediately preceding may be considered to some extent in pari materia. They are as follows:
'Sec. 1763. No person who holds an office, the salary or annual compensation attached to which amounts to the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, shall receive compensation for discharging the duties of any other office, unless expressly authorized by law.
'Sec. 1764. No allowance or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk, by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other department; and no allowance or compensation shall be made for any extra services whatever, which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mancuso
...33, 53 L. Ed. 81;Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U. S. 472, 490, 21 S. Ct. 174, 45 L. Ed. 280;Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97,7 S. Ct. 467,30 L. Ed. 588. We have said that the definition of fraud implicit in the statute may be severed from any presumption whereby fraud must be r......
-
Puglisi v. United States, 275-76 through 281-76
...receiving extra pay for additional services which might and should have become part of his regular duties. See, United States v. Saunders, 120 U.S. 126, 129, 7 S.Ct. 467, 30 L.Ed. 594 (1887). The Court there ruled that under the then prevailing law it was proper for someone to perform two d......
-
Kizas v. Webster, s. 82-1477
...63 Mullett's Adm'x v. United States, 150 U.S. 566, 570, 14 S.Ct. 190, 192, 37 L.Ed. 1184 (1893). See also United States v. Saunders, 120 U.S. 126, 129, 7 S.Ct. 467, 468, 30 L.Ed. 594 (1887); Urbina v. United States, supra note 49, 428 F.2d at 1285; Schaible v. United States, 135 Ct.Cl. 890,......
-
Bond v. Phelps, Case Number: 33240
...doctrine was announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Converse v. United States, 16 L.Ed. 192."In United States v. Saunders, 30 L.Ed. 594, it was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Federal law prohibiting the allowance of additional pay or extra compens......