BERKMAN ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1919-05-19
No. 865
Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandéis dissent..
250 U.S. 114 Supreme Court of the United States (1919) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 63 L. Ed. 877 · 39 S. Ct. 411 · 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1723 · SCDB 1918-056
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman challenged a District Court clerk's retention of one percent of funds they had deposited as bail, claiming the clerk's fee statute did not apply to criminal cases and violated their constitutional rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments and Article IV. The Supreme Court upheld the clerk's retention of the fee, finding that the defendants voluntarily requested the clerk's services with full knowledge and therefore were not deprived of property without due process, nor subjected to excessive bail or other constitutional violations.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice McReynolds

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.

Section 828, U. S. Revised Statutes, which specifies the compensation to be taxed and allowed to clerks of District Courts, among other things provides: “For receiving, keeping, and paying out money, in pursuance of any statute or order of court, one per centum on the amount so received, kept, and paid.”

In each of the criminal causes entitled The United States v. Emma Goldman and The United States v. Alexander Berkman, some days subsequent to defendants’ arrest-(June, 1917), evidently upon applications in their behalf consented to by the District Attorney, the court below directed “That the sum of $25,000 Dollars, cash, be deposited in the Registry of this Court in lieu and place of bail for the appearance of .the above-named defendant before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in accordance with the provisions. of the recognizance to be given by said defendant.” Defendants were afterwards convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

Upon motions duly presented the clerk was afterward^ directed to pay to defendants’ counsel funds deposited under the above orders, less costs. He retained one per centum as compensation and the court refused to declare this sum unlawfully withheld and direct its return. The matter is here by writ of error to the District Court.

It is now maintained that § 828 does not apply to criminal cases. Further,-that if construed to be applicable where cash is deposited in lieu of bail for appearance of one charged with crime, it conflicts with the Federal Constitution, .Fifth Amendment-^"No person shall . . . be deprived of . . ’. liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”; also with Article IV, § 2 — “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and "immunities of citizens in the several States;” and.with the Eighth Amendment — “Excessive bail shall not be required.” _

Our jurisdiction depends upon whether the case really and substantially involves the constitutionality of the section in question as construed and applied. Judicial Code, § 238; Rakes v. United States, 212 U. S. 55, 58; Lamar v. United States, 240 U. S. 60, 65. And we deem it too clear for serious discussion that, as enforced below, the statute deprived plaintiffs in error of no right guaranteed by any of the constitutional provisions relied upon. With full knowledge they voluntarily asked to deposit money with the clerk and later requested that he be required to pay it out. Having thus obtained his services they now deny his claim for compensation. Obviously, nothing was taken from them without due process of law; their property was not taken for public use; they were not deprived of any privilege or immunity enjoyed by citizens of other States; and the record reveals no relation between the contested charge and any excessive bail. We think the suggested constitutional questions are wholly wanting in merit and too insubstantial to support our jurisdiction. Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 218. The writ of error must be

Dismissed.

Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandéis dissent..

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm'n of the State of Cal., 255 U.S. 445 (U.S. 1921)
    …dismiss the cause for. want of power to entgrtain.it. Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Town of Graham, 253 U. S. 193. True it is elaborately argued that the court below erred in supposing that the statute was susceptible of the com struction which it affixed to it and that, instead of adopting that…
  • Auglaize Box Bd. Co. v. Hinton, 254 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1920)
    …art, 246 U. S. 255, 257; Farson, Son & Co. v. Bird, 248 U. S. 268, 271. (2) Farrell v. O’Brien, 199 U. S. 89, 100; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U. S. 359, 362; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118. Mr. Earl H. Turner for plaintiff in error. Mr. J. H. Goeke, Mr. T. T. Ansberry and Mr. George T. Farrell for defendants in error.…
  • Harjo v. Kunkle, 254 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1921)
    …v. Hanley, 205 U. S. 225, 232; Goodrich v. Ferris, 214 U. S. 71, 79; Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U. S. 580, 583; United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Co., 238 U. S. 140, 142; Sugarman v. United States, 249 U. S. 182, 184; Berkman v. United States, 250 U. S. 114, 118; Piedmont Power & Light Co. v. Graham, 253 U. S. 193. Mr. Lewis C. Lawson for appellant. Mr. Preston C. West and Mr. A. A. Davidson, for appellees, submitted.…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw