Barrett v. Morgenthau

District of Columbia

Barrett v. Morgenthau

25 F. Supp. 709, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1473

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 6, 1938

DocketNo. 90216

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F. Supp. 709 (Barrett v. Morgenthau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. Morgenthau, 25 F. Supp. 709, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1473 (D.D.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BAILEY, Justice.

In my opinion the plaintiff, who is a retired army officer, is not an “officer * * in the employ of the United States”, within the provisions of Title 18, Sec. 203, U. S. Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 203. His pay is rather in the nature of a pension than compensation for services performed. He admits that he is a person holding a place of trust or profit “under the provisions of Sec. 198, Title 18, U. S. Code [18 U.S.C.A. § 198] and as such ineligible to practice before the Treasury Department in the prosecution “of any claim against the United States.” He is not, however, debarred by statute from appearing as an attorney before the Treasury Department in any matter not involving a claim against the United States, and I see no reasonable ground for a regulation forbidding a retired army officer- from appearing as an attorney before the Department in cases which do not involve claims against the United States.

The demurrer to the answer should be sustained.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BAILEY, Justice.

In my opinion the plaintiff, who is a retired army officer, is not an “officer * * in the employ of the United States”, within the provisions of Title 18, Sec. 203, U. S. Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 203. His pay is rather in the nature of a pension than compensation for services performed. He admits that he is a person holding a place of trust or profit “under the provisions of Sec. 198, Title 18, U. S. Code [18 U.S.C.A. § 198] and as such ineligible to practice before the Treasury Department in the prosecution “of any claim against the United States.” He is not, however, debarred by statute from appearing as an attorney before the Treasury Department in any matter not involving a claim against the United States, and I see no reasonable ground for a regulation forbidding a retired army officer- from appearing as an attorney before the Department in cases which do not involve claims against the United States.

The demurrer to the answer should be sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. Supp. 709, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-morgenthau-dcd-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack