TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Union County v. Hyde

UNION COUNTY v. HYDE HYDE v. UNION COUNTY

Union Cnty. v. Hyde, 37 P. 76 (Or. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 28, 1894
Citations
37 P. 7626 Or. 241894 Ore. LEXIS 64
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
1. Fees of District Attorney — Adjudication of Account by Circuit Court— Code, § 1074.— The action of the circuit court, under section 1074, Hill’s Code, in ascertaining the district attorney’s fees, and ordering them paid, is not a final adjudication, as in such case the court acts only in an auditing capacity, and a county may recover from the district attorney so much of the amount allowed and paid as was unauthorized by law. 2. Fees of District Attorney—Not Teue Bills—Code, §§ 1073, 1210.— Under section 1073, Hill’s Code, prescribing the district attorney’s fees in criminal actions, he is not entitled to fees for “not true bills” returned by the grand jury, a3, under section 1210, a criminal action is commenced only when an indictment is found, and filed with the clerk. 3. District Attorney—Costs and Fees — Code, § 1073.— The district attorney is not entitled to a separate fee for each of several defendants who are jointly indicted for the same offense and jointly tried, under section 1073, Hill’s Code, providing for fees in a criminal action. 4. District Attorney—Costs and Fees—Code, §2167.— The district attorney is not entitled to a separate fee for each of several defendants arrested and examined.before a committing magistrate, for, under section 2167, Hill’s Code, he is allowed afee for attending and conducting an examination before a committing magistrate, without regard to the number of defendants. ,
Summary
Appeal from Union; Morton D. Clifford and James A. Fee, Judges. In the case of Union County v. Hyde, the complaint alleges that while the defendant was district attorney of the sixth judicial district in Union County he presented to the circuit court of said county, at the October term, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, his bill for services performed at that term, both before the grand jury and before the court, amounting to five hundred and ninety-two dollars; that thereupon said court made and entered an order allowing said bill as claimed, and that defendant immediately thereafter drew that amount from the county treasury. It is further alleged that a large part of said sum so allowed and drawn was in excess of any amount due said Hyde, and was illegal, in that the same was a charge for services in connection with certain ‘ ‘ not true bills ” of indictment returned by the grand jury, and for services in prosecuting certain persons who were jointly indicted with one H. C. Cottner, and tried jointly with him. A demurrer because the complaint did not state a cause of action was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff appeals. The case of Hyde v. Union County is a controversy submitted without action under sections 257 and 258, Hill’s Code. It appears that fifty-two persons were arraigned before a justice of the peace in Union County charged with riot, and the district attorney, Hyde, conducted the preliminary examination in person on behalf of the state, and claimed the sum of five dollars for appearing against each defendant. The county court allowed only five dollars for conducting the entire examination, which ruling was reversed on the agreed case before the circuit court, and the county appeals. The two cases have been argued and tried together, and in the decision are treated as one.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The questions in this case are:—

1. Is the action of the circuit court, under section 1074, Hill’s Code, in ascertaining the fees to which the district attorney is entitled, and directing an order to be entered upon the journal that the same be paid, a final adjudication, so as to prevent a county which has paid the amount so allowed from recovering so much thereof as was unauthorized by law? We are of the opinion that in such case the court acts in an auditing capacity,, or as auditor, and, while the sums allowed are prima facie evidence as to the amounts due the district attorney, the order is not to be regarded as conclusive, and, therefore, in our opinion, *28 a county has a right to recover from the district attorney, as for money had and received, so much of the amount thus allowed and paid as was unauthorized by law,

2. Is a district attorney entitled to fees for “not true bills” returned by a grand jury? We think not. The statute (section 1073) prescribing his fees limits them to “criminal actions,” and by section 1210 a criminal action in the circuit court is commenced when an indictment is found by the grand jury, and duly filed with the clerk of the court. We are of the opinion that his salary and per diem are intended to compensate him for work of the character indicated.

3. Where several persons are jointly indicted for the same offense, and jointly tried, is the district attorney entitled to a separate fee for each defendant? We think not. The statute provides for fees in a criminal action, and in the case stated there is but one criminal action, one trial, and one judgment, although there may be several defendants.

4. Where several persons are arrested and examined before a committing magistrate, is the district attorney who appears for the state entitled to a separate fee for each defendant so arrested? We think clearly not. By statute (section 2167, Hill’s Code,) he is allowed a fee for attending and conducting an examination before a committing magistrate, without regard to the number of defendants. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1897: 11907: 11915: 11929: 11949: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Young110 N.W. 292 (Iowa 1907)
  2. City of Bend v. Title & Trust Co.289 P. 1044 (Or. 1929)
  3. Frankl v. Bailey50 P. 186 (Or. 1897)
  4. Pape v. Title and Trust Co.210 P.2d 490 (Or. 1949)
  5. Pacific County v. Willapa Harbor Publishing Co.88 Wash. 562 (1915)

Most recent

  1. Pape v. Title and Trust Co.210 P.2d 490 (Or. 1949)
  2. City of Bend v. Title & Trust Co.289 P. 1044 (Or. 1929)
  3. Pacific County v. Willapa Harbor Publishing Co.88 Wash. 562 (1915)
  4. State v. Young110 N.W. 292 (Iowa 1907)
  5. Frankl v. Bailey50 P. 186 (Or. 1897)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list