United States v. Marvin

Background

Edwin E. Marvin, the clerk for the federal trial courts in Connecticut, sued the United States seeking $535 for 107 days at $5 per day between 1900 and 1906. He claimed those days were spent attending court and handling bankruptcy business by referring voluntary bankruptcy petitions to a referee while the judge was away. The clerk’s journal did not originally show the court as open on those days, and no written orders from the judge opening the court were on file. The Court of Claims recorded that the clerk’s supplemental accounts had been approved by the court and the items were later denied payment by the Treasury.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the clerk could recover per diem pay for those days of bankruptcy business despite the judge’s absence and incomplete entries in the journal. The Court of Claims relied on earlier cases it cited (the Owen and Finnell cases) and concluded the clerk was entitled to the $535. The Government objected that a court approval statement was not explicitly set out in the findings and argued that such a statement was merely a legal conclusion. The Supreme Court, in a short per curiam opinion, agreed with the Court of Claims that the cited precedents and the court approval supported payment, and it affirmed the judgment for the clerk.

Real world impact

This decision upholds a practical result: clerks who handle bankruptcy business and obtain court approval can recover small statutory per diem payments even where the judge was not personally present. It reinforces use of prior Court of Claims and statutory authority to allow similar fee claims against the Government. The ruling concerns a specific administrative payment dispute rather than a broad change in bankruptcy law.