Ready to print. Press Ctrl+P (⌘+P on Mac), or
CaseSearchBETA
Open CaseSearch appOpen app

Milchrist v. United States

18273
Decided Court of Claims
Disposition
other
full scope
Scan to open on mobileScan to open on another device
Court
Court of Claims
Decided
Judge
Peelle, J.
Posture
Claim referred to the Court of Claims by the Secretary of the Treasury under R.S. § 1063 for determination of legal questions regarding special compensation for a district attorney.
Claimant / Former United States Attorney (1)
Thomas E. Milchrist
Mr. Richard B. McMahon
v.
Defendant (1)
The United States
Mr. Samuel A. Putman, Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Dodge

Overview

Judgment for the claimant in the amount of $75, subject to a counterclaim of $872.55, with final judgment suspended for adjustment in the Treasury Department.

Case summary

Thomas E. Milchrist, a former U.S. Attorney, sought special compensation for various legal services performed at the request of the Attorney-General. The Court of Claims held that while some services fell under the standard fee bill or could be assimilated to fees for government-interested litigation, the claimant was not entitled to extra compensation for services that were part of his official duties. The court further allowed the government's counterclaim for overpayments made in a prior year, noting that the claimant's action opened his accounts for review. Final judgment was suspended pending an adjustment in the Treasury Department regarding the claimant's maximum annual compensation.

Abstract

A former U.S. Attorney sought special compensation for legal services performed at the Attorney-General's request. The court held that some services qualified under standard fee bills or government-interested litigation but denied extra compensation for those within official duties, while allowing the government's counterclaim for prior overpayments due to the claim opening accounts for review. Final judgment was suspended pending Treasury Department adjustment on maximum annual compensation.

Jurisdiction

not challenged
Statutory basis
Revised Statutes, section 1063
Subject matter
Claims against the United States involving controverted questions of law referred by the Secretary of the Treasury

Procedural posture

Posture at trial
Claim referred to the Court of Claims by the Secretary of the Treasury under R.S. § 1063 for determination of legal questions regarding special compensation for a district attorney.
Posture on appeal
Original action in the Court of Claims

Legal categories

Business

Case record

Full case name
Thomas E. Milchrist v. The United States
Docket number
18273
Court
Court of Claims
Decided
Opinion author
Peelle, J.
Opinion type
published
Precedential status
precedential
Judges on panel
Peelle

Issues & holdings

1
Issues raised
1
modified
2
Holdings
Standard of review

de novo

Disposition rationale

The court held that services within official duties are not entitled to extra compensation unless specifically authorized by law, but allowed certain fees under the fee bill and assimilated fees for services in matters where the government had an interest.

Preservation

Issue preserved for review

Holdings of the court

Entitlement to special compensation for official duties
District attorneys cannot receive extra compensation for services within their official duties unless explicitly authorized by law.
Statutes (R.S. § 1765) prohibit extra compensation for public officers with fixed salaries. Appropriation acts for 'special compensation' do not override this prohibition but provide payment for services within official duties for which no specific fee is provided.
non-binding
Counterclaim validity
The government is entitled to recover overpayments made to the claimant.
The court has the authority to open prior settlements when a claimant brings an action for compensation, allowing the government to correct errors and recover overpayments.
non-binding

Timeline

No timeline recorded.

Facts & evidence

Incident

Date

Key facts

5 facts
  1. Claimant served as United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois from 1890 to 1894.
  2. Claimant performed various legal services at the request of the Attorney-General, including taking depositions and advising on matters related to the World's Columbian Exposition.
  3. Claimant sought special compensation for these services, which the Attorney-General approved.
  4. The government asserted a counterclaim for $872.55 based on an overpayment/settlement adjustment from 1891.
  5. The court examined whether these services were within the official duties of a district attorney and whether they were compensable beyond the statutory salary/fee limits.

Evidence in the record

Testimonial
  • Claimant's verified accounts
Documentary
  • Attorney-General's approval of accounts
  • Treasury Department records of emolument returns

Authorities

Cited authorities (5)

10 How. 109
followedquotedprecedent
Construction of the prohibition against extra compensation for public officers.
158 U.S. 346
followedquotedprecedent
Duty of district attorneys to represent the government in all suits.
147 U.S. 676
followedquotedprecedent
Recovery for independent employment not incidental to official duties.
150 U.S. 342
followedquotedprecedent
Duty of district attorney to appear for national bank receiver.
125 U.S. 176
followedquotedprecedent
Recovery of overpayments made by mistake.

Legal principles applied

  • Repeals by implication are not favored
  • Mistaken opinion of the legislature does not make the law
  • Public officers cannot keep overpayments made by mistake
Index terms47
Summary terms
Legal mechanisms
Various actions
Various actors
Legal concepts
Legal outcomes
Legal issues
Legal actions
Action type
other
Context
The court allowed $75 for specific items and upheld a counterclaim of $872.55, suspending final judgment for Treasury adjustment.
Scope
full
Geo locations
Search facets
Parties
Judges
Peelle
Courts
Locations