Case Name: UNITED STATES v. TINSLEY, Chief Supervisor of Elections
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-05-28
Citations: 73 F. 369
Docket Number: No. 94
Parties: UNITED STATES v. TINSLEY, Chief Supervisor of Elections.
Judges: Before GOFF and SIMQXTOX, Circuit Judges, and SEYMOUR, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 73
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. TINSLEY, Chief Supervisor of Elections.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
May 28, 1895.)
No. 94.
Appeal and Writs of Error — Actions against United States.
An action brought by a supervisor of elections against the United States, under authority of the act of March 3, 1887, to recover items for services disallowed by the treasury department, is an action at law on a legal de,mand; and the judgment can be reviewed only on a writ of error, and not by appeal. U. S. v. Fletcher, 8 C. C. A. 453, 60 Fed. 53, and Chase v. TJ. S., 15 Sup. Ct. 174, applied.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia.
A. J. Montague, U. S. Atty.
William B. Tinsley, in pro. per.
Before GOFF and SIMQXTOX, Circuit Judges, and SEYMOUR, District Judge.

Opinion:
SIMONTON, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Virginia. The plaintiff below, appellee here, supervisor of elections, brought his action at law against the United States for certain items of services claimed by him and disallowed by the first comptroller of the treasury. The cause was heard by the court, and the greater part of his claim allowed the petitioner. The United States filed its petition for an appeal, which was allowed, and the cause thus comes here. This being an action on a legal demand,-and properly an action at law, errors in the court below cannot be reviewed in this court except by writ of error. Act March 3, 1887, c. 359, § 9 (1 Supp. Rev. St. 561); U. S. v. Fletcher, 8 C. C. A. 453, 60 Fed. 53. The cause coming here by way of appeal, this court has no jurisdiction over it. Chase v. U. S., 15 Sup. Ct. 174. It is therefore dismissed.