United States v. Hall
147 U.S. 691 (1893)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Hall, 147 U.S. 691 (1893)

United States v. Hall

No. 459

Submitted January 3, 1893

Decided March 6, 1893

147 U.S. 691

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Syllabus

On the authority of United States v. 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. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, 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, 140 U. S. 147, � 7.

2. The claim for acknowledgments is based upon the allegation of the petition that the plaintiff

"took and certified

Page 147 U. S. 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 25 cents for taking a single acknowledgment in each case, since it was held in the case of United States v. Ewing, above cited, p. 140 U. S. 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 case remanded with instructions to reduce the judgment in conformity with this opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.