after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
*359 By Rеvised Statutes,. sec. 714, “ when any judge of any court of the United States resigns his office, after having held his сommission as such at least ten years, and having attained the age of seventy years, he shall, during thе residue of his natural life, receive the same salary which was by law payable to him at the timе of his resignation.”
In April, 1865, petitioner was appointed by the President, Judge of the District Court of the Unitеd States for the Eastern District of New York, and served as.such until July 20, 1897, when he resigned his office, having then held his сommission for over thirty years, and attained the age of seventy years and upwards. The salary of all District Judges was fixed by the'act of February 24, 1891, c. 287, 26 Stat. 783, at the rate of $5000 per annum. There is no question made but that petitioner was entitled to this amount, and that it has been paid him.
The controversy arises over the proper construction of the-act of February 7, 1873, reproduced in Rev. Stаt. §§ 658 and 613. By section 658 it is enacted that “ the regular terms of the Circuit Courts shall be held in each year, аt the times and places following: ... in the Southern District .of New York, at the city of New York, . . . exclusively for the trial and disposal of criminal cases, and matters arising and pending in said court, on the second Wednesday in January, March and.May; on the third Wednesday in June, and on the second Wednesday in Oсtober and December;” and by section 613 it is provided that “ the terms of the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York,-appointed exclusively for the trial and disposal of criminal business, may be held by the Circuit Judge of the Second Judicial Court (Circuit) and the District Judges for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New Yоrk, or any one of said three judges; and at every such term held by said judge of said Eastern District he shall rеceive the sum of three hundred dollars, the same to be paid in the manner now prescribed by law for the payment of the expenses of another District Judge while holding court in said district.”
The facts are that, after the passage of this act of February 7, 1873, petitioner held each year the six terms of the District *360 Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, referred to in the statutе, and received for holding each of said terms the sum of $300, amounting in all to $1800 per annum. Petitioner nоw insists that this was a part of the salary which was by law payable to him at the time of. his-resignation, within the meaning of the retiring act, sec. 714, and should, therefore, be added to the $5000 per annum admitted to bе due him.
The case in reality turns upon the meaning of the word “salary,” as used in section 714. The word “salary” may be defined generally as a fixed annual or periodical payment for services, dеpending upon the time and not upon the amount of services rendered.
Thompson
v. Phillips,
Wholly different considerations apply to the compensation provided-for by section 613. To entitle the Judge of the Eastern District of New York to the $300 per term, provided for by that section, it is necessary that the term be actually' held by him, whеn he is paid for his services in the manner -provided by law for the expénses of a District Judge holding cоurt in another district Alian his own. He may hold but one term a year, for which he would receive- $300. He may hоld three terms, for which he may receive $900, or he may hold the entire six terms and receive $1800. Such сompensa *361 tion is a variable quantity, dependent upon the number of terms held by the Judge. Upon the theory of the petitioner, if he had held but one term during the year previous to his resignation, he wоuld be- entitled to but $300 in addition to his regular salary of $5000. The fact that he was able to hold the entire number of six terms for the twenty-four years preceding his resignation is a tribute to his industry, faithfulness and capaсity, as well as to his good health, but it does not affect the question in a legal point of view. This compensation was not only for services actually performed, but was subject to be diminished or taken away at the will of Congress. It was something entirely distinct from the salary paic] to him as Judge of thе District Court for the Eastern District of New York, but was in fact, as was held by the Court of Claims, extra pay for еxtra work performed— for particular as distinguished from continuous services.
We are all of opinion that the judgment of that court was right, and it is therefore
Affirmed