Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96015/booth-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 08:16:03
Document Index: 286636641

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 260', '§ 1', '§ 260', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Booth Vs United States - Citation 96015 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Booth Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/96015
Case Number 291 U.S. 339
booth v. united states - 291 u.s. 339 (1934) u.s. supreme court booth v. united states, 291 u.s. 339 (1934) booth v. united states no. 656 argued january 17, 1934 decided february 5, 1934 * 291 u.s. 339 certificate from the court of claims syllabus 1. a district or circuit judge of the united states who retires pursuant to § 260 of the judicial code, as amended, continues in office within the meaning of § 1 of art. iii of the constitution, and his compensation may not be diminished. p. 291 u. s. 348 . 2. in the light of the evident purpose of the act that a retiring judge shall continue to hold office and perform official duties, its provision for the appointment of a "successor" cannot be construed as.....
Booth v. United States - 291 U.S. 339 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court Booth v. United States, 291 U.S. 339 (1934)
Decided February 5, 1934 *
1. A district or circuit judge of the United States who retires pursuant to § 260 of the Judicial Code, as amended, continues in office within the meaning of § 1 of Art. III of the Constitution, and his compensation may not be diminished. P. 291 U. S. 348 .
2. In the light of the evident purpose of the Act that a retiring judge shall continue to hold office and perform official duties, its provision for the appointment of a "successor" cannot be construed as vacating the office. P. 291 U. S. 351 .
3. A diminution after an increase of compensation, even though not a reduction below the rate at date of appointment, is a diminution within the meaning of § 1 of Art. III. P. 291 U. S. 352 .
In other words, is a diminution after an increase banned if the compensation, notwithstanding the reduction, remains in excess of that payable when the incumbent took office? The answer must be in the affirmative. Several courts, in well considered decisions, have so interpreted analogous provisions of state Constitutions ( Commonwealth ex rel. Hepburn v. Mann, 5 Watts & S. 403; City of New Orleans v. Lea, 14 La.Ann.197; Long v. Watts, 183 N.C. 99, 110 S.E. 765), and the Solicitor General, with commendable candor, admits that a contrary construction would be subversive of the purpose of § 1 of Article III.