Case ID: us-ct-cl_23/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Blatchford", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHARLES H. PAGE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (23 C. Cls. R., 4; 117 U. S. R., 67.)
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    In November, 1884, W. A. Price received a certificate from the governor of Rhode Island that he had been elected a member of the Forty-ninth Congress. He was sworn in and took his scat. Claimant contested the election, and in January, 1887, the House resolved that Price was not elected, and declared the seat vacant. A second election was then held and claimant was elected and took his seat. lie claims salary during the period Price occupied the seat, basing his contention on the ground (§51 Rev. Stat.) that as the latter was not elected aud the seat was declared vacant, claimant’s predecessor was not Mr. Price, but the Representative from his district who sat in the Forty-eighth Congress.
    The court below decides:
    (1) A resolution which unseats the sitting member does not thereby seat the contestant.
    (2) Where a person presented credentials, was sworn in, served, and was paid for service therein, he holds his seat under colorable title, aud his acts as a member are as legal as those of his colleagues.
    (3) A contestant elected, under an order for a new election made after the unseating of the sitting member, can not recover pay for the portion of the term during which he was engaged in contesting such seat, and during which he was not the “sitting member.”
    (4) Section 51, Revised Statutes, contemplates a vacancy occurring during the session of Congress. A person elected to fill such vacancy is only entitled to pay “ from the time that the compensation of his predecessor ceased.” The word “ predecessor ” must be held to mean predecessor in payment.
    
      The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 16, 1888.