v. BanknlS3 U;' 13: 67:, 10' Sup..Ct 238, is plainly'· distinguishable from the present caSe. If it·could be given the effect now sought to be ascribedt6it, it would, I think, conflict iwith the law as genthe courts of Kansas, in cases erally laid down, ::and which are cited upon the plaintiff's brief, but which need not be here mentioned. Schrader v. Bank was in several respects essentially different from the present case. It arose under the statute relating to national banks, and the decision was put mainly upon the ground that under that statute the individual liability which it imposes upon stockholders is restricted to luch contracts, debts, and engagements contracted in the ordinary course of its business, as had been and that when the bank went into liquidation there was no authority on the part of its officers to transact any business in the name of the bank, so as to bind its shareholders, except that which is implied under the duty of liquidation. .That case is clearly without pertinency tq this one. The plaintiff's rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense is m.ade absolute.
UNITED' STATESv. STANTON.
(Circuit Court of Appeals,. Second Circuit.
March 10, 1898.)
Under Rev. St. § 835, a United States attorney Is entitled to all the fees and emoluments of his office, when, in addition to the amount of his necessary expenses, they do not exceed $6,000 per annum.
In El'ror to the Circui'fCourt of the United States for the District of Connecticut. . This was a by LewieE; Stanton to recover from the United States certa'in fees claimed ·to 'have been earned by him as Unitjudgment in plaintiff's ed States attorney. The favor for $1,496.82 (75 Fed. 3117), 'and the United States have appealed. ' . , Chas. W. Comstock, U. ,13. Afty:' Lewis E. Stanton, for defendant in error. Before WALLACE and LACOM;BE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. We agree with the court below that it is the meaning of.section 835 oLthe Revised Statutes onhe United States that the Uni,ed States attorney is entitled to all of the fees and emoluments of his office, when,in to the amount of his necessary expenses, they donotex<leed the sum of $6,000 per annum. in, error had not received the As it now appears that the amount of the items in frqm, the. emoluments of his offict"., the judgmentshollld be aftirmed.
SILL V. UNITED STA'IES.
SILL v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. SILL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, second Circuit. Nos. 77 and 78.
April 7, 1898.)
DISTRICT ATTORNEy-FEES-CLERK HIRE.
A district attorney is entitled to recover for clerk hire. 87 Fed. 698, followed.
U. S. v. Stanton,
2. SAME-ExTRA 8ERVICES-COMPENSAHON.
A district attorney is not entitled to extra compensation for services rendered in examining titles to sites for public buildings. U. S. v. Ady, 22 C. C. A. 76 Fed. 359, followed.
Section 824 of the Hevlsed Statutes, which allows compensation to a district attorney for each day of the term where court is ,held at a place other than his place of abode, is limited by the act of congress of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 509, 541, c. 362), to each day when the court Is opened by the judge for business, or business is actually transacted in the court. A district attorney Is entJ:tled to compensation for services rendered In Investigating violations of the customs laws reported to him by a collector in accordance with section 838 of the Revised Statutes, and in which he determined that no prosecution should be instituted.
SAME-EXAMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CASES NOT PROSECUTED.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. George G. Sill, per se. Chas. W. Comstock, U. S. Atty. Before WALLACE and LACOMBE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. These writs of error involve the right of the United States attorney for the district of Connecticut to recover the following items disallowed in his accounting by the aCCOunting officers of the treasury: (1) Disbursements for clerk hire; (2) opinions and services as to title to post office building sites; (3) per diem fees for attending terms of the circuit and district courts held at places other than his place of abode; (4) fees for examination of internal revenue cases reported to him by the collector, in which he determined that no prosecution should be instituted. As to the first item, the case is controlled by the decision of this court in U. S. v. Stanton (decided at this term) 87 Fed. 698, where we concurred in the opinion of Judge Shipman in 37 Fed. 252, and adjudged that the disbursements should be allowed. As to the second item, we approve of the decision of the circuit court of appeals in U. S. v. Ady, 22 C. C. A. 223, 76 Fed. 359, where the reasons why there can be no compensation for such services are convincingly stated. , The third item is claimed under section 1324 of the Revised Statutes, which allows compensation to a district attorney "for each day of his necessary attendance in the courts of the United States, when the court is held at the place of his abode, five dollars; and for his lilttendance when the court is \leld elsewhere, five dollars for