United States v. Stone
United States v. Stone
Opinion of the Court
The petition of Stone is for allowance out of the fund for services in the Circuit Court of Appeals under the stipulation of November 6, 1901. The petition of Sears is for a like allowance. The petition of Daish is for a like allowance on the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with traveling expenses and other expenses connected therewith — the latter $1,641.53; and the petitions of Carter are for a like allowance on behalf of Senator Eoraker and John B. Daish in the Supreme Court of the United States, for an allowance of $150 a month to himself pending such appeals in the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and for the payment of printing and typewriting.
But the money and securities arrested are wholly in excess of any amount needed for these purposes. Keeping in mind that Stone’s preparations for the Circuit Court of Appeals were all substantially made during the time covered by the allowances already made him, we do not see why an allowance of over $5,000 to chief counsel in the Circuit Court of Appeals would be justifiable, and it seems to us that $10,000 would be a sufficient sum for counsel in the Supreme Court.
The order is therefore modified, limiting the total sum of retention of funds to the sum of $20,000, and, thus modified, is affirmed.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Reference
- Full Case Name
- UNITED STATES v. STONE
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Courts (S 107*) — Orders Appeaiabije — Temporary Injunction. Receivers of different federal districts having obtained funds misappropriated by a federal disbursing officer, in a suit by the United States to recover the same, an order directing that such receivers retain possession of the moneys and properties in their hands until further order of the court was in effect a temporary injunction, restraining the law officers of tlie government from taking the funds out of the hands of the receiver of the foreign district, and as such was appealable under the statute allowing appeals from temporary injunctions. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 1100; Dee. Dig. § 407.* Orders, decrees, and judgments reviewable in Circuit Court of Appeals, see notes to Salmon v. Mills, 13 G. C. A. 374: Tavlor v. Rreese, 90 C. O. A. 566.] 2. Stipulations (§ 14*) — Construction—Effect—“Chief Counsel.” Pending a suit by tbe United States against a disbursing officer to recover misappropriations, it was stipulated that, in consideration of a payment to a receiver of all money and property wbieli tbe defendants bad not conveyed or disbursed, to bona fide purchasers and were able to pay over, there should be paid, from the property so surrendered, fees of the receiver, the fees, traveling, and other expenses of defendants’ chief counsel and of his attorney, the amount to be fixed and allowed by the court, the fee of his attorney for representing him in any criminal prosecution, expenses of an accountant, etc. Held, that, under such stipulation, a reasonable allowance for defendants’ chief counsel, both on an appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court of the United States, -together with their expenses therein, should be allowed out of tbe fund, and that two attorneys appearing and prosecuting the appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals and two other attorneys appearing and prosecuting the a'ppeal to the Supreme Court of the United States should be considered as “chief counsel,” within the stipulation. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Stipulations, Cent. Dig. §§ 24-37; Dec. Dig. § 14.*] 3. Appeal and Error (§ 442*) — Jurisdiction of Trial Court. Where, pending a suit by the United States to recover misappropriated funds from a federal disbursing officer, it was stipulated that, in consideration of a large part of tbe money being returned to a receiver, tbe fees and expenses of the defendants’ counsel in litigation should be paid out of tbe fund, the fact that appeals were taken by defendants to the Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court from a judgment in favor of the United States, which was affirmed, did not deprive the Circuit Court of jurisdiction to make allowances thereafter out of the fund in accordance with the stipulation. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2203; Dec. Dig. § 442.*] 4. Stipulations (§ 14*) — Construction—Services—Allowances. Where, in an action by the United States against a federal disbursing officer to recover misappropriated funds, it was stipulated that, in consideration of a payment of a portion of the funds to receivers, if, before the final determination of the cause, defendant should be liberated from prison, he should be allowed bis reasonable personal expenses incurred in the trial, including the taking of evidence, but with no compensation for his time, such expenses to be determined by the court and paid out of the moneys in court, the defendant, after having been released, and after judgment in tbe action in favor of the United States, was not entitled to an allowance for services rendered in assisting the courts and counsel, nor for traveling or living expenses. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Stipulations, Cent. .Dig. §§.24-37; Dec. Dig. § 14.*]