Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta United States v. Hall 147 U.S. 691

← Cases

United States v. Hall

147 U.S. 691 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1893-03-06 Docket No. 459 English

Delivered by Brown J.

Contents

Majority — Brown J.

p. 691
UNITED STATES v. HALL.

Syllabus

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 of United States v. Ewing, 140 TJ. 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-hrought 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. Nixon and Mr. Solicitor• General for appellants.
Mr. Charles C. Lancaster for appellee.

delivered the opinion of the court.'

This case involves but two items —

1. The charge for docket fees must be disallowed upon the authority of United States v. 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 certified

p. 692
103 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 of United States v. 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, be

- Reversed, and the ease remanded, with instructions to reduce the judgment in conformity with this opinion.

Cases cited