Gibson v. Peters
Annotate this Case
150 U.S. 342 (1893)
U.S. Supreme Court
Gibson v. Peters, 150 U.S. 342 (1893)
Gibson v. Peters
Argued November 2, 1893
Decided November 13, 1893
150 U.S. 342
The receiver of a national bank is an officer and agent of the United States within the meaning of those terms as used in Rev.Stat. § 380, providing that all suits and proceedings arising out of the provisions of law governing national banking associations in which the United States or any of its officers or agents are parties shall be conducted by the district attorneys of the several districts under the direction and supervision of the Solicitor of the Treasury.
If a district attorney of the United States, acting under the provisions in Rev.Stat. § 380, conducts a suit or proceeding arising out of the provisions of law governing national banking associations, he is entitled to no remuneration other than that coming from his salary, from the compensation and fees authorized to be taxed and allowed, and such additional compensation as is expressly allowed by law specifically on account of services named.
The plaintiff in error brought this action against the defendant in error, as receiver of the Exchange National Bank of Norfolk, to recover the value of legal services alleged to have been rendered, or offered to be rendered, by him as United States district attorney in a certain suit brought in the name of that receiver against one R. H. McDonald, and which suit was subsequently, in August, 1885, dismissed, on motion of the receiver, as settled.
Pursuant to a written stipulation of the parties, the case was heard by the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered for the defendant in conformity with the opinion of the circuit judge. 35 F. 721, 729; 36 F. 487. The case is before this Court upon a certificate of division of opinion.
There was evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as to the extent and value of the services rendered or offered to be rendered by him as United States district attorney. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff had neither rendered nor been requested by the receiver to render any services in the action against McDonald; that by direction of the Comptroller of the Currency, the receiver employed other counsel; that the plaintiff's present claim had never been presented to the Treasury Department, nor been allowed by the Comptroller of the Currency, and that he had not been directed by the Solicitor of the Treasury to render the alleged services.
The following are the questions upon which the judges were divided in opinion:
1st. Whether the United States district attorney is entitled by virtue of his office to appear and act as counsel for the receiver of a national bank in collecting its assets and winding up its affairs without the request or consent of said receiver, and without the direction of the Solicitor of the Treasury.
2d. Whether, conceding his rights so to appear, and he does so appear of his own motion, is he entitled to any extra compensation beyond that prescribed by law for his official services?
3d. Whether, conceding his right so to appear and act, he is entitled to any extra compensation beyond that provided by law for his official services except such as the Comptroller of the Currency may allow after his claim therefor has been presented to the Treasury Department, according to the provisions of section 299 of the Revised Statutes.
4th. Whether the United States district attorney, whose official service had been tendered to such receiver and declined by him for the reason that he had employed other counsel, acting under the directions of the Comptroller of the Currency and Solicitor of the Treasury, is entitled to extra compensation for such offer of services, whether the service was rendered by the district attorney or not.
5th. Whether, conceding his right so to receive extra compensation
when he has offered to appear and act as official counsel without the request or consent of the receiver, is such compensation payable out of the assets of the bank in the hands of the receiver or out of the funds provided by law for the payment of district attorneys for their official services?
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.