UNITED STATES
v.
WALLACE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A federal commissioner sought compensation for keeping dockets as required by court order, claiming entitlement to the same fees allowed to clerks under federal statute for "like services." The Supreme Court affirmed that the commissioner was entitled to the clerk's compensation of $3 for docket-keeping in cases where issue is joined and testimony given, holding that "like services" means services substantially resembling each other in nature rather than being identical in every particular, and that docket-keeping by a commissioner constituted a like service to docket-keeping by a clerk despite differences in the specific entries each made.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Matthews delivered the opinion of the court. Aftér stating the facts in the language reported above, he continued :
It is provided in § 847 Rev. Stat. regulating the fees of commissioners :
“ For issuing any warrant or writ, and for any other service, the same compensation as is allowed to clerks for like services.”
§ 828 Rev. Stat. provides that the clerk be allowed:
“ For making dockets and indexes, taxing costs, and all other services on the trial or argument of a cause where issue is joined and testimony given, $3.” And — “ For making dockets and indexes, taxing costs and other services in a cause which is dismissed or discontinued, or where judgment or decree is made without issue, $ 1.”
It was not disputed by the accounting officers of the Treasury Department, nor by the Solicitor-General in argument, that the commissioner was legally bound under the order of the Circuit Court to render the services charged for in keeping the dockets required, nor that he is entitled to compensation therefor. But it is insisted that he ought not to be allowed the compensation demanded, because the services rendered in keeping' his docket áre not in all particulars like services to those rendered by clerks in keeping dockets, and that, consesequently, his compensation is fully covered by paragraph 8 of § 828, which allows for making entries “for each folio fifteen cents.”
This view is met by the Court of Claims in the following extract from its opinion:
“ The phrase ‘ like services ’ does not necessarily mean identical with, for by such a construction the compensation allowed to commissioner ‘for any other service’ would be defeated because of the subject-matter of the duties of the commissioner and the clerk being somewhat different; but the statute must receive a reasonable construction, and where the service of the clerk bears a substantial resemblance to the duty performed by the commissioner, then, under § 847, the commissioner would be entitled to the compensation allowed by law to the clerk, it being in legal substance a ‘ like service. ’ ”
The compensation of fifteen cents for each folio, supposed to embrace this service, is given “for entering any return, rule, order, continuance, judgment, decree, or recognizance, or drawing any bond, or making any record certificate, return, or report.” - Clearly this service has no likeness to that of keep ing a docket, while the keeping of a docket by the-commissioner is a like service to the keeping of a docket by the clerk, although the docket entries to be made by each may differ. The judgment of the Court of Claims is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Jones, 134 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1890)
-
United States v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1891)…be reduced to writing by the magistrate, or by his direction, and signed by the witnesses respectively.” 7. The 9th, 21st and 22d items for fees for dockets, indexes, etc., appear to have been allowed upon the authority of United States v. Wallace, 116 U. S. 398, in which case it was held by this court, that under 'the provisions of Eevised Statutes, §§ 847 and 828, a commissioner, who, by direction of the court, kept a docket with entries of each warrant issued, and subsequent proceedings thereon, made on…
-
Am. Can Co. v. Bruce's Juices, Inc., 187 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1951)…and Iscan juice trade were competing purchasers under the Act, and that the grocery cans and Iscans respectively were goods of “like grade and quality.” U. S. v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371, 43 S.Ct. 607, 67 L.Ed. 1035; U. S. v. Wallace, 116 U.S. 398, 6 S.Ct. 408, 29 L.Ed. 675; Federal Trade Comm. v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1009; Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 112, 73 L.Ed. 311. We have carefully reviewed the action of the district…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence