
    ALONZO J. VAN DUZEE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 21178.
    Decided February 26, 1900.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claimant, clerk of the Circuit Court for the northern district of Iowa, sues for compensation for filing and entering separate and distinct records and other official papers appertaining to the office of commissioners which were deposited in his office.
    I.The question in this case is whether depositing certain papers under the Act Hay 28,1898 (29 Stat. L., 184, § 19), was equivalent to filing them.
    II.Where the claimant has the right of appeal the court is free to examine the question involved fully, and express its own conclusion; but where the defendants alqne have the right, the court is constrained to follow a decision against them, with which they, having the right to appeal, rested content. (See JCuse’s Case ante.)
    III.It does not comport with the judicial integrity of the Federal authority that there be gross diversities of statutory interpretation in different Federal courts when the means exist for bringing them into one unquestionable rule.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the,, facts of the case as found by the court:
    The claimant, Alonzo J. Yan Duzee, was clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa from August, 1882, to December 31, 1897, duly qualified and acting.
    During said period he made up his accounts for services rendered on behalf of the United States, and presented the same, duly verified, to the United States court for approval in the presence of the district attorney, and orders approving the same as being just and according to law were entered of record. Said accounts were then presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for payment. In the settlement of the account from July 1,1891, to September 30, 1897, part was paid, but payment of services embraced in Finding III was refused.
    
      Item, 1. — For filing and entering 9,930 separate and distinct records and other official papers appertaining to the offices of commissioners of the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of Iowa, which were deposited by said commissioners under the act of May 28, 1896, in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court for said district, at 10 cents each, as follows:
    
      (a) Dockets and records, 16. §1. 60
    
      (b) Information or complaints, 2,997 . 299. 70
    (c) Warrants, 1,984. 198.40
    
      (d) Subpoenas, 1,899. 189.90
    («) Documentary testimony, 446. 44. 60
    (/) Bonds, 649. 64.90
    
      (g) Affidavits, 445. 44.50
    
      (h) Mittimus, 446. 44. 60
    
      (i) Search warrants, 22 1. 2. 20
    (j) Applications for discharge as poor convicts, 587. 58. 70
    (k) Oaths for discharge as poor convicts, 232.■„ 23.20
    
      (l) Mandates to jailer for discharge of poor convicts, 169. 16. 90
    (m) Applications for seaman’s wages, 24. 2.40
    . (n) Summons on application for seaman’s wages, 13. 1. 30
    (o) Prsecipe, 1.10
    993.00
    During the period when the aforesaid services were rendered it was the settled practice under the verbal orders of the court for the clerk to file all papers sent up by the commissioners in said district, and by a written rule of court entered of record it was made the duty of the clerk in cases wherein the commissioner held the defendant to appear at court to file the papers and transcripts sent up by the commissioner, and to forthwith enter the case on the docket, which rule is as follows:
    “ Oommissmiels 2Mpers.
    
    “Upon receipt by the clerk of the papers and transcript of proceedings before a commissioner, wherein the partjr is held to appear at court, the same shall be properly filed and the same entered upon the docket.”
    The aforesaid services were performed in compliance with said practice and rule of court.
    
      Mr. O. Q. Lancaster for the claimant.
    
      Mr. P. M. Ashford (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Act %8th May, 1896 (29 Stat. L., 184), provides:

“That the terms of office of all commissioners of the Circuit Courts heretofore appointed shall expire on the thirtieth day of Juno, eighteen hundred and ninety-seven; and such office shall on that day cease to exist, and said commissioners shall then deposit all the records and other official papers appertaining to their offices in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court bjr which they were appointed.”

In this case the clerk filed the papers so deposited and seeks to recover the ordinary fees for filing papers, which fees amount in the aggregate to $993.

The defendants contend that the statute above quoted does not contemplate the filing of the papers as a part of the records of the office and that the clerk is entitled to no fee whatever.

Probably some of these papers were papers which the commissioners would have returned to the clerk’s office for filing if they had continued in office, but it is impossible for the court to say how far this probability extends. The question, therefore, is simply this, whether depositing is equivalent within the intent of the statute to filing — whether all papers deposited should be filed.

The term “filing” is one well understood; the term “deposited ” does not necessarily mean filing -and of. itself indicates nothing more than that the clerk’s office should become, for the papers of the outgoing commissioners, a depository, a place of storage, where thej'' would remain for safe-keeping and be found if any of them should ever be wanted.

But in the case of Marsh v. The United States (88 Fed. Pep., 879, 890, item 57) the District Court for the northern district of Florida bad this question under advisement, and held:

“ The same act also requires that £ said commissioners shall then deposit all records and other official papers appertaining to their offices in the office of the clerk of .the Circuit Court by which they were appointed.’ Does this authorize the filing by the clerk of all papers sent in under this act? It seems clear that they become part of the records and files of the court. Some of the papers so sent in would, in any event, be sent up to be filed by the clerk, being papers in criminal cases, which there is no dispute as to the duty of the clerk to file; and in fact all but five dockets are papers of this nature, which should have been filed in any event. As to the others, as they become part of the files of the court, they should be properly indorsed and placed on the files. It is necessary for the clerk to maintain possession of the papers so sent up, to place them away in a. safe place, and do all such acts as are included in the filing fee. There is no other compensation provided therefor, and the clerk should not be thus burdened without compensation when there is an adequate and proper fee.”

The defendants rested content. They had the right of appeal, but they did not see fit to exercise it. The judgment stands as a final adjudication of the rights of the parties.

It was said in the case of Meigs (20 C. Cls. B., p. 185), where the defendants, instead of appealing from a judgment against them, put the claimant to a second action:

“The defendants had their day in court, they have submitted their defenses to a court of competent jurisdiction, and the issue has been decided against them. That issue is forever settled between the parties in all future litigation. Such is well-settled law between citizens, as decided by the Supreme Court in elaborately considered casthe es. (Beloit v. Morgan, 7 Wall., 619; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. R., 351; United States v. Nourse, 9 Pet., 8.) Interest reipuhlÁcm ut sit finis litiimi.

“The judgment of this court might have been reviewed by the Supreme Court had the Attorney-General so elected. But he abandoned an appeal at the request, it is understood, of both the Secretary of. the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury, and his action is the action of the defendants.” (United States v. Babbitt, 104 U. S. B., 767.)

In the present case the parties are different, though the defendants are the same; and the decision in Marsh v. United States, of course, is not an estoppel that the present claimant can set up. But it is not to be supposed that the Government desires that a clerk in one circuit shall be paid for his services and another in another circuit shall be denied compensation for the same services; neither does it comport with the judicial integrity of the Federal authority that there be one law in one judicial district and an opposite law in another and that a gross diversity of statutory interpretation will make a suitor’s legal rights dependent upon the jurisdiction in which he may chance to be. It is such uncertainties which bring reproach to the administration of justice, and the}^ are not to be tolerated when the means exist for bringing the diversities into one unquestionable rule. If in the case now before us the claimant had the right of appeal, this court would be at liberty to further examine the question involved and express freely its own conclusion. But in view of the fact that the defendants have, and they alone have, the means to correct the error, if error there be, the court is constrained to follow the decision above quoted and submit the determination of the question involved to that tribunal whose august province it is to reconcile all differences which may exist in the various branches of the Federal judiciary.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover from the United States the sum of $993.  