Case: CAROLINE SOUTHWORTH, Executrix, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Caroline Southworth v. United States
Decision Date: 1896-03-23
Docket Number: 
Citation: 31 Ct. Cl. 452
Volume: 31
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CAROLINE SOUTHWORTH, Executrix, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 452–452

Head Matter:
CAROLINE SOUTHWORTH, Executrix, v. THE UNITED STATES.
(No opinion in C. Cls. R.; 161 U. S. R., 639.)
On the claimant’s Appeal.
On December 16,1878, the testator of plaintiff filed Ms petition in the Court of Claims, praying judgment against the United States for the sum of $82,830 for services as United States commissioner for the district of Louisiana. The petition alleged that proceedings were commenced before him as such commissioner in 8,283 cases, and that under section 1986, Revised Statutes, he was entitled to $10 for each case. A demurrer thereto having been sustained and a judgment of dismissal rendered, his executrix, the present appellant — he having died pending the suit — appealed to the Supreme Court, and the judgment of the Court of Claims was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. (151 U. S., 179; 29 C. Cls. R., 556.)
In the opinion then filed the Supreme Court, while disapproving of the contention that the mere multitude of cases was proof of a lack of good faith, at the same time distinctly recognized that no cause of action arose against the Government unless the proceedings, judicial in form, were instituted and carried on in good faith and with a view to the arrest and punishment of offenders; and the case was remanded in order that that question of fact might be considered and determined. Thereafter a trial was had in the Court of Claims, and upon the testimony presented the court found, in its sixth finding, as follows: “From said facts the court finds the ultimate fact to be that the claimant’s testator did not perform the services for the United States in good faith for the purpose of enforcing the criminal law.” And upon this finding j ud gment was entered in favor of the defendant, from which judgment the plaintiff again appealed.
The decision of the court below is affirmed.
March 23, 1896.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brewer
delivered the-opinion of the Supreme -Court