Case Name: ARTHUR MAYO v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-12-01
Citations: 49 Ct. Cl. 144
Docket Number: No. 31893
Parties: ARTHUR MAYO v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 144–147

Head Matter:
ARTHUR MAYO v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 31893.
Decided December 1, 1913.]
On the Proofs.
Prom January 1, 1910, to and including September 30, 1911, the plaintiff was clerk of the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and during said period entered orders or decrees in equity proceedings pending in said court on six days, when none of the judges of said court were personally present. The orders or decrees so entered were transmitted by mail to said clerk by one of the judges in said district as orders or decrees in said proceedings made by the judge and were received as such by the clerk.
I. Where a judge of a United States District Court sends by mail orders or decrees in equity proceedings pending in said court it is the clerk’s duty to enter them upon the record and file them and the clerk is entitled to compensation therefor under the ruling made in the case of the U. 8. v. Finnell, 185 U. S., 236.
The Reporter’s statement of the case:
Tbe following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. On or before January 1, 1910, and to and including September 30, 1911, the claimant, Arthur Mayo, was clerk of the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, duly qualified and acting.
II. During said period said clerk entered orders or decrees in equity proceedings pending in said court on six days' during said period. None of the judges of said court was personally present at the time of the entry of said orders or decrees, but the same were transmitted to claimant as clerk by mail by the Hon. H. G. Connor, United States judge in said district, as orders or decrees in said proceedings made by the judge, and were received as such by the clerk.
The said orders or decrees in equity were severally transmitted to and received by said clerk on the following dates, respectively: March 16, 1910; April 30, 1910; May 9, 1910; May 24, 1910; September 13, 1910; September 7, 1911; a total of six days.
There was no indorsement on any of said orders or decrees to enter such order or decree signed by the judge, but the several orders or decrees were entitled in the equity proceeding then pending in said court to which they respectively referred, and appeared to be and were orders or decrees in the said respective causes, were severally signed and dated by said judge and transmitted to the clerk as aforesaid.
For the purpose of entering each of said orders or decrees received as aforesaid the claimant made the following entries in the journal for opening and adjourning court on the several dates for which attendance is claimed, being the dates afore said, as follows: “Court meets at 10 o’clock a. m., when the following order is received, entered, and filed, signed by his honor, H. G. Connor, United States judge.” Then a record on the minutes of said order or decree would be made, the same indexed and filed in the proper cause, and this being done the clerk entered after the order or decree the following: “Court at — p. m., takes a recess, subject to the call of the judge.” A charge of a fee of $5 per diem was made by the clerk for opening and closing the court and entering said order or decree received from the judge, and 15 cents each for opening and closing the court as stated. No business, other than as stated, was transacted by the court on any of said days, and the judge was not actually present in court on any of said days.
III. Claimant made out and presented his regular quarterly accounts as clerk, which were approved by the judge according to law, allowed by the Treasury Department, and paid. On April 16, 1912, claimant made and presented to said court a “supplemental” account, in which he made charges at the per diem rate of $5 for each of said six days and the said items for opening and closing court and entering and filing said orders or decrees in equity proceedings, and this supplemental account was duly verified and presented to said United States court for approval in the presence of the district attorney and an order approving the same as being just and according to law was entered of record on April 16, 1912.
The items composing this supplemental account were not charged in the regular accounts during the period when said services were performed, but were presented after the said action by the court thereon to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for payment, and payment of the fees as per diems and the other items were disallowed upon the stated ground that they were supplemental in character under the provisions of department Circular 127 (1896), 3 Comp. Dec., 743, and were not otherwise examined on the merits.
IY. The items composing said supplemental account are as follows:
“The United States of America.
"In account with. Arthur Mayo, clerk of the circuit court of the United States at Washington, N. C., for per diem from the 1st day of January, 1910, to the 31st day of March, 1910:
‘1 SUPPLEMENTAL.
“ 1910, March. 16. To 1 day’s attendance at court.1.$5. 00
“ 1910, March 16. To entering two orders opening and closing court.. . 30
5.30
"Exp. court is opened this day for entering and filing orders m action at law, signed by his honor, H. G. Connor, judge.)”
And then follows the clerk's affidavit verifying the account.
The supplemental account to that of the quarter from April 1 to June 30, and another to the quarterly account from September 1 to December 31, and another to that of the quarter commencing September 1, 1911, are each of them similar to that above set out, excepting only the dates, making the aggregate per diems 6 days and the other items, 12 in number, at 15 cents each. The amount of the entire claim is $31.80.
Mr. F. B. Grosthwaite, for the plaintiff.
Mr. B. W. Andrews, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston Thompson, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Per Cubiam:
We can not distinguish this case under the findings of fact in any substantial feature from that of United States v. Finnell (185 U. S., 236), which is controlling upon this court.
It is true that the judge did not indorse on the decrees sent by him to the clerk in this case "enter this order," but they were sent as orders or decrees in equity proceedings pending in the court, and it was the clerk's duty to enter them upon the record and file them. R. S., 794.
Under the influence of the Fennell case we think the claimant should recover, and judgment will he rendered in his favor for said sum of $31.80.