Case Name: FRANK B. CROSTHWAITE v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1897-11-29
Citations: 33 Ct. Cl. 502
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK B. CROSTHWAITE v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
FRANK B. CROSTHWAITE v. THE UNITED STATES.
[30 C. Cls. R., 300; 168 U. S. R., 375.]
On the defendants’ Appeal.
Acting Attorney-General Aldrich appoints an examiner in the Department of Justice as special assistant attorney “to aid in the preparation and prosecution of all criminal business properly coming before the court timing Us special term,” Ms compensation to he “determined by the Attorney-General upon completion of your service." The attorney takes the oath of office and performs the duties assigned to him, hut Attorney-General Miller refuses to determine the amount of his compensation, or to allow him any.
The court below decides:
1. The Attorney-General can not commission an examiner in his Department as special assistant attorney and assign Mm to criminal business and send him into the grand-jury room to examine witnesses, and then deny that he was acting as district attorney. An examiner in the Department of Justice has no right to enter a grand-jury room and assist at the finding' of indictments.
2. Tlie duties of an examiner in the Department of Justice and of special assistant attorneys appointed to assist in the prosecution of criminal business are distinct and different. (Act Bih August, 189%, 27 Stat. L., 349; Rev. Stat., §§ 363, 366.)
3. It is settled that a person may hold two offices and receive the salaries of both, each having its own duties and compensation and they not being- incompatible.
4. Two offices are incompatible when a performance of the duties of the one will prevent or conflict with the performance of the duties of the other, or when the holding of the two is contrary to the policy of the law.
5. A lawyer by accepting the appointment of special assistant attorney agrees to submit the amount of his compensation to the Attorney-■General, but not the question whether'lie is, in law, entitled or not entitled to any compensation whatever.
6. Where the Attorney-General refuses to fix the value of the service ho leaves the attorney free to recover in quantum meruit. If a person is legally entitled to compensation, the refusal of a public officer to fix the amount will not deprive him of his right.
7. The value of a lawyer’s services is a matter of opinion, as to which the court will not bo bound by the testimony of witnesses.
The decision of the court below is reversed, on the ground that one who receives a commission as special assistant to a district attorney for a limited time or a particular case is not an assistant district attorney within the meaning of Revised Statutes, § 365, and without the certificate of the Attorney-General therein provided for can not recover compensation.
November 29, 1897.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Haklan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme
Oourt
In the case of United States against Herron, decided May 9,1898, the judgment of the court below was reversed on the authority of the Crosthwaite case above.
No opinion was delivered in either court.