Overview
Case summary
Elihu Colman, former United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, petitioned for payment for services rendered from 1890 to 1892. The trial court partially allowed his demands, and both parties appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals addressed multiple issues regarding per diem and mileage allowances under Rev. St. § 824. The court held that per diem is not authorized for preliminary examinations without formal accusation, mileage may be allowed for successive days before the same commissioner if necessary, but multiple per diems for same-day attendance before one commissioner are not permitted. The court affirmed allowances for court attendance without proof of actual presence but disallowed certain expenditures and mileage claims. The total allowance was reduced by $578.40, and a new judgment for $1,202.40 was ordered.
Abstract
A former United States attorney petitioned for payment of services including per diem and mileage allowances for work from preliminary examinations to court attendance. The appellate court held that per diem is not authorized for preliminary examinations without formal accusation, allowed mileage for necessary successive days before the same commissioner but not multiple per diems for same-day attendance, and affirmed allowances for court attendance without proof of actual presence while disallowing certain expenditures. The trial court's judgment was set aside, reducing the total allowance and ordering a new judgment for the petitioner.
Opinion of the court
opinionWOODS, Circuit Judgejoined by JENKINS, 8H0WALTEE
- Rev. St. § 824 requires formal accusation for per diem allowances
- Mileage for successive days before same commissioner may be necessary
- Multiple per diems for same day before one commissioner not allowed
- Court attendance allowances valid without proof of actual presence
- Expenditures disallowed without showing propriety and necessity
- Mileage disallowed for court attendance following commissioner attendance at same place
Jurisdiction
not challenged- Writ of error prosecuted by each party from the Circuit Court's judgment on a petition for sums due for services as United States attorney
Procedural posture
- Allowance of per diem for attendance before commissioners without formal accusation
- Allowance of mileage for attendance on successive days before same commissioner
- Allowance of multiple per diems for attendance before one commissioner on same day
- Allowance for attendance in court without showing actual attendance
- Disallowance of expenditures for printing and stenographer's services
- Disallowance of mileage for court attendance following commissioner attendance at same place
Subsequent history
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
The statute does not apply to such preliminary examinations; formal accusation required
Issue preserved for review
clearly erroneous
Mileage may be necessary even for successive days unless necessity for next day's presence is known before departure
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Statute does not support multiple charges for same day attendance before one commissioner
Issue preserved for review
de novo
Allowed under precedent U. S. v. Smith
Issue preserved for review
clearly erroneous
Disallowance proper without showing expenditures were proper and necessary
Issue preserved for review
clearly erroneous
Travel not necessary if already present at same location
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Allowance of per diem for preliminary examinations without formal accusation — statutory · error foundError affected total allowance amount · not harmless
- Allowance of multiple per diems for same day attendance before one commissioner — statutory · error foundError contributed to excessive total allowance · not harmless
Statutory interpretation
1Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Interpretation of Rev. St. § 824 for per diem allowances — de novo Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo
- Factual findings on necessity of mileage and expenditures — clearly erroneous Trial court's factual findings reviewed for clear error
Timeline
Elihu Colman begins service as United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Start of period for which compensation is claimed
Elihu Colman ends service as United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
End of period for which compensation is claimed
Circuit Court of Appeals issues opinion on cross-appeals, setting aside judgment and ordering new judgment
Outcome: Judgment set aside and new judgment ordered for $1,202.40
Final disposition of the appeal
Facts & evidence
Key facts
4 facts- Elihu Colman served as United States attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin from February 17, 1890, to April 24, 1892
- He petitioned the United States for payment for services rendered
- The trial court made a special finding of facts and conclusions of law under statute 24 Stat. 505
- The court allowed some items and disallowed others, leading to cross-appeals
Procedural history
3 steps- Colman filed petition against United States for services rendered
- Trial court partially allowed demands
- Both parties prosecuted writs of error to the Circuit Court of Appeals
Evidence in the record
- Special finding of facts and conclusions of law by trial court under 24 Stat. 505
- Former accounts duly allowed
- Evidence type: Per diem allowances for attendance before commissioners · Challenge basis: Statutory authority under Rev. St. § 824 · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Allowed in part for examinations where warrants issued · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: reversed
- Evidence type: Mileage allowances for attendance before commissioners · Challenge basis: Necessity under Rev. St. § 824 · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Found necessary by trial court · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Sentencing
Authorities
Cited authorities (7)
Related cases (7)
Statutes
- Rev. St. § 824 (per diem and mileage for examinations before judge or commissioner)
- 24 Stat. 505 (authority for special finding of facts)
Standards & doctrines
- De novo review for statutory interpretation
- Clearly erroneous review for factual findings
Legal principles applied
- Statutory authority required for compensation of government officers
- Precedent-based interpretation of Rev. St. § 824
Notable quotes
““the inquiry is never limited to the fact or character of services, but always extends to the statutory authority for compensation””majority — Citing U. S. v. Patterson regarding statutory authority for per diem allowancesEmphasizes that entitlement to compensation depends on statutory authorization, not just service rendered
““a criminal charge, strictly speaking, exists only when a formal written complaint has been made against the accused, and a prosecution initiated””majority — Quoting U. S. v. Patterson to define when a person is charged with crime under Rev. St. § 824Key definition limiting per diem allowances to formal accusations