Case Name: ROBERT H. BUCK v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1890-01-13
Citations: 25 Ct. Cl. 120
Docket Number: No. 14703
Parties: ROBERT H. BUCK v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Sgoeield, J., was absent when the case was heard and took no part in the decision.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 120–122

Head Matter:
ROBERT H. BUCK v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 14703.
Decided January 13, 1890.]
On the Proofs.
The original petition is filed •within sis years after the rendition of the services of a circuit court commissioner. It contains only general allegations concerning the services. The amended petition is filed after six years. It describes the services specifically.
I. Amendments to a petition are largely in the discretion of the court, and are always proper, as against the statute of limitation, when no new cause of action is introduced.
II. The statute of limitations cannot be set up if the original petition embraced the services sued for by general allegations.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
The following are the facts of this case as found by the court:
I. The claimant, Robert H. Buck, was the commissioner of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Colorado from November 12, 18.9, to December 15, 1886.
II. From November 12,1879, to December 15,1886, petitioner as such commissioner issued warrants in 102 cases, in 82 of which issue was joined and testimony taken, in 9 of which issue was joined but no testimony taken, and in 11 of which issue was not joined, the defendant was discharged, and no testimony taken, and he made docket entries in each and all of said cases as required by the rules of said court.
Said account, at the rates prescribed by sections 828 and 847, Revised Statutes, amounted to $275, of which amount $6 accrued after August 4, 1886.
III. February 15, 1889, the claimant made out and verified by oath his account of fees for keeping said docket, and submitted the same to the district court of the United States for the said district of Colorado, and the court entered the following order thereon:
“ Pleas in the district court of the United, States for the district of Colorado, sittina at .Denver, seventy-ninth day, November term, A. D. 1838. •
“Friday, February 15, A. 1)., 1889.
“In the matter of the accounts of Robert H. Buck, commissioner.
“At this clay comes Robert H. Buck, esq., late a United States commissioner, and presents to the court here his account for docket fees as such commissioner from November 12, 1879, to December 12, 1886, amounting to $275.
“And thereupon the court declines to examine and approve the said account and receive the same or any part thereof (pp. 10, 23, 24).”
1Y. Rule of said court requiring commissioners to keep •docket:
“ (3) It is further ordered by the court that each commissioner shall keep a well-bound book as a docket, in which he shall enter, on the day the transactions occur, the issuing of each warrant, upon whose complaint and request the same was issued, the nature of the offense, and the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for service, together with the proceedings had under said warrant; there shall be entered the names of the witnesses present and examined, and their fees, the name of the guard, if any, and his fees, together with the marshal’s or deputy marshal’s fees ; and all of said fees, together with the mileage and expenses allowed by law and a statement ■of the commissioner’s own fees, shall be properly entered upon the warrant when returned to the commissioner. After the close of each examination the commissioner shall forward to the clerk of the United States district court for the proper district all the papers in the case, with a proper transcript of the proceedings, in which he shall schedule the papers forwarded.”
The said rule was made to comply with regulations of Department of Justice requiring a docket to be kept by the commissioners.
ilír. Qeorge A. King for the. claimant.
Mr. William J. Rannells (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Ootton) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Weldon, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a claim to recover for services rendered as a United States commissioner, from the 12bh day of November, 1879, to the 15th of December, 1886, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $275.
Between said dates the claimant issued warrants in 102 cases, in 82 of which issue was joined and testimony taken, in 9 of which issue was joined but no testimony taken, and in 11 of which issue was not joined. On the loth of February, 1889, the claimant presented his account, embracing said items of charges, to the district court of the United States for the district of Colorado, the district in which the services were rendered, but the said court " declined to examine and approve the said account and to receive the same or any part thereof."
Six dollars of the account accrued after the 4th day of August, 1886. The question presented by this record, has been before this and the Supreme Court in two cases, and it is not necessary that we should discuss or re examine it. (Wallace v. United States, 20 C. Cls. R., 274; Knox v. United State , 23 id., 307; United States v. Wallace, 116 U. S, R., 398; United States v. Knox, 128 id., 230.)
It is insisted upon the part of the defendants that the statute of limitations had run at the time the amended petition was filed against a large part of the claim, to wit, for the services rendered between the 12th day of November, 1879, and the 30th of August, 1883. Between those periods $260 of said fees were earned. After said time and up to June 1, 1885, $9 were earned; and after the 4th of August, 1886, $6 were earned. The original petition embraced, by general allegation, the kind and quality of services contained in the amended petition, and the amended petition in addition contained a charge of $6 rendered in 1886, after the passage of the Act of August 4, 1886. Amendments are largely in the discretion of the court, and are always proper as against the statute of limitations, when no new cause of action is introduced and the amendment is confined to a mere development of the original cause of action. (Cape Ann Granite Company v. The United States, 20 C. Cls. R., 1.)
It is the judgment of the court that the claimant recover the sum of $269.
Sgoeield, J., was absent when the case was heard and took no part in the decision.