Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/161/346/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:04:25+00:00

Document:
When there is color for a motion to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and the claim is not so clearly frivolous as to authorize the dismissal, the court may consider and pass upon the question raised. Claims of deputy marshals against a marshal for services stand upon the same footing as those of an ordinary employee against his employer.
acceptance of his draft for $200, not subject to any previous order, and that the same was placed to his credit since the acceptance of the draft; that there had also been placed to his credit the sum of $2,274.55, due him for the services of W. J. Patterson, rendered prior to the acceptance of his draft for $325, and that the same was subject only to two drafts for the aggregate sum of $600; that of the claim of $98.82, due to S. P. Graham for services rendered as deputy, $95.62 had been placed to the credit of the defendant in the Treasury Department since the acceptance of the claim by the defendant, the remainder of said claim having been allowed by the government; that the vouchers so traded to the plaintiffs were for services rendered prior to the said acceptance, and before the same was transferred to the plaintiffs, and that the further sum of $2,858.76 was placed to the defendant's credit and control in the Treasury Department, for services rendered by Graham, out of which sum defendant received $900, leaving $1,958.76 to the credit of the defendant since the acceptance. The referee accordingly reported that the plaintiffs were entitled to payment for the full amount of their claim.
Before the judgment of the court was rendered, the defendant moved that the action be dismissed upon the ground that the evidence disclosed that the drafts and accounts declared upon were drawn upon claims, or an interest in claims, against the United States, before their allowance, and were therefore null and void, under Rev.Stat. § 3477, inhibiting the assignment of claims against the United States. This motion was overruled, the court proceeded to consider the case upon the report of the referee, and exceptions thereto, and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which affirmed the judgment of the court below. Whereupon defendant sued out this writ of error.
"all transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or of any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void unless they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof,"
While we are of opinion that the claim of a federal question thus presented is not so clearly frivolous as to authorize us to dismiss the case, within the rulings in Millingar v. Hartupee, 6 Wall. 258; New Orleans v. New Orleans Waterworks Co., 142 U. S. 79, 142 U. S. 87, and Hamblin v. Western Land Co., 147 U. S. 531, we think there was such color for the motion to dismiss as authorizes us to proceed to the consideration of the question involved.
but for those of each of his deputies, who are appointed by the marshal personally, and accountable to him alone, though subject to be removed by the court at its pleasure. Rev.Stat. § 780. The marshal makes his own bargains with his deputies, and is unrestricted in the amount he shall pay them, which may be either a salary or a proportion of the fees earned by them, except that in computing the maximum compensation to which he is entitled, the allowance of no deputy shall exceed three-fourths of the fees and emoluments received or payable for the services rendered by him. Rev.Stat. § 841. He is thus bound to charge himself with a quarter of the fees earned by each deputy. Their claims for services against the marshal stand upon the same footing as those of an ordinary employee against his employer, and are not even contingent upon the marshal's collecting his own accounts against the United States, although in the present case the marshal accepted the drafts in suit upon such contingency.
their services. Had the marshal neglected to include them in his accounts, their validity as claims against him would not have been affected, and, if they chose to await payment of their claims until the marshal received money applicable to their services, this was a matter of favor to him. The plaintiffs are no more the assignees of the deputies' claims against the government than the deputies were of a share or interest in the marshal's claim against the government. Upon the theory of the defendant, the deputies would be without remedy. They would have no claim directly against the government, because he stands between them. They would have none against him personally, since, by his acceptance of their drafts, they became assignees of a share or interest in his claim against the government.

References: § 3477
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 780
 § 841