Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES v. HALL, 147 U.S. 691 (1893)

147 U.S. 691

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1893-03-06
Topic: general

UNITED STATES v. HALL, 147 U.S. 691 (1893) UNITED STATES v. HALL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERNDISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 459.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed UNITED STATES v. HALL, 147 U.S. 691 (1893). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

UNITED STATES v. HALL,147 U.S. 691(1893)

UNITED STATESv. HALL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO.

No. 459.

Submitted January 3, 1893.

Decided March 6, 1893.

On the authority ofUnited Statesv.Ewing,140 U.S. 142, the charges of a commissioner of a Circuit Court for docket fees are disallowed, and the charges for acknowledgments of sureties on recognizances of defendants in prosecutions brought by the United States reduced to a fee for a single acknowledgment.

THIS was an action by a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio for docket fees, and for fees for taking the acknowledgment of sureties upon recognizances. The court rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner for $336.75, and the United States appealed.

Mr. James H. NixonandMr. Solicitor Generalfor appellants.Mr. Charles C. Lancasterfor appellee.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves but two items —

1. The charge for docket fees must be disallowed upon the authority ofUnited Statesv.Ewing,140 U.S. 142,147, ¶ 7.

2. The claim for acknowledgments is based upon the allegation of the petition, that the plaintiff "took and certifiedPage 692103 acknowledgments of sureties on recognizances of defendants in prosecutions brought by the United States, for each of which acknowledgments plaintiff was entitled by the statutes of the United States to receive the sum of twenty-five cents." This item must also be reduced to a fee of twenty-five cents for taking a single acknowledgment in each case, since it was held in the case ofUnited Statesv.Ewing, above cited, p. 146, ¶ 2, that the taking of an acknowledgment in a criminal cause by the accused and his sureties is a single act, for which only one fee can be charged. If, for any reason, it was necessary to take them separately, that fact should have been made to appear. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court must, therefore, beReversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to reducethe judgment in conformity with this opinion.