|
|
United States v. Nix, 189 U.S. 199 (1903)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Nix, 189 U.S. 199 (1903)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 189 U.S. 185, click here.
United States v. Nix Nos. 142 , 195 Submitted December 18, 1902 Decided March 2, 1903 189 U.S. 199
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Syllabus
1. Under sec. 829, Rev.Stat., a United States marshal may elect to be reimbursed his actual traveling expenses incurred in serving writs, but there is no authority in law for allowing him mileage in excess of the distance from the place of arrest to the place of receiving the writs, even if the travel is in a new and unsettled Indian country and there are exceptional difficulties to overcome.
2. Where a United States court is opened for business by order of the judge, it is the duty of the marshal to attend, and he is entitled to his per diem fee therefor whether the judge be present or not.
3. A general act is not to be construed as applying to cases covered by a prior special act on the same subject. The marshal for the District of Oklahoma is entitled to fees for transportation of prisoners arrested under warrants issued by United States commissioners as fixed by the statute providing a temporary government for the Territory of Oklahoma, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of Congress of August 19, 1894, applicable to marshals generally throughout the country. The fact that a marshal’s accounts have been approved by a district judge is sufficient to cast upon the government the burden of showing any error of fact in his account.
4. Where the marshal charged for travel in transporting a prisoner who escaped from his custody, and there was no finding, either by the district judge in approving his accounts or by the Court of Claims, of due diligence on the part of the officer to prevent the escape, the item was held to be properly disallowed, the presumption being that the prisoner escaped by negligence.
This is a petition for marshal’s fees for the District of Oklahoma, upon which the Court of Claims made the findings of fact set forth in the margin.*
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Nix, 189 U.S. 199 (1903) in 189 U.S. 199 189 U.S. 200. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FDUNR81HC4MV1PW.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Nix, 189 U.S. 199 (1903), in 189 U.S. 199, page 189 U.S. 200. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FDUNR81HC4MV1PW.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Nix, 189 U.S. 199 (1903). cited in 1903, 189 U.S. 199, pp.189 U.S. 200. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FDUNR81HC4MV1PW.
|