Overview
Case summary
This case involves an appeal by Samuel G. Hilborn regarding the calculation of a district attorney's maximum compensation of $6,000. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Claims, holding that 'assimilated fees' constitute 'emoluments of office' under Revised Statutes § 835 and must be included in the compensation limit. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the reporting requirements of § 833 are not restricted by § 834.
Abstract
The case concerns an appeal regarding the calculation of a district attorney's maximum compensation limit of $6,000, where the court held that assimilated fees constitute emoluments of office and must be included in that limit. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, clarifying that reporting requirements are not restricted by another provision. The decision below was affirmed on the same grounds.
Opinion of the court
opinionMr. Justice Brown
Procedural posture
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
De novo
The court agreed with the lower court's interpretation of the Revised Statutes.
De novo
The court held that section 833 is not modified or limited by section 834.
Holdings of the court
Statutory interpretation
2Timeline
No timeline recorded.
Facts & evidence
Key facts
3 facts- The case concerns the calculation of a district attorney's compensation.
- The dispute involves whether 'assimilated fees' are considered 'emoluments of office' for the purpose of the $6,000 maximum compensation limit.
- The case is a continuation of a previous trial reported at 27 C. Cls. R., 547.
Authorities
No authorities recorded.