THE UNITED STATES
v.
PATTERSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The United States sued Patterson on a bond for alleged non-performance of certain stipulations, and Patterson pleaded performance; the trial court allowed Patterson credit for outstanding debts that a supervisor had undertaken to collect and apply toward Patterson's account, even though the office of supervisor had become extinct by the time payment was received. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a defendant cannot receive credit for debts collected by a supervisor until the money is actually in the hands of a public officer authorized to receive it for the government.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The case was submitted without argument, and
Duvall, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows : This case has been considered in connexion With that against January & Patterson.
A suit was instituted on the bond dated 23d March, against Arthur & Patterson; and pending the suit Arthur died. The Defendant pleaded performance, which the Plaintiffs replied, alleging as a breach of the condition, that the stipulations therein contained .had ,i0^ been performed, and that the Defendant' was in arrear to'the Plaintiffs,the sum of g 16,1S1 15 1-2. &c. on w],ich issue was joined. **
The evidence, exhibited in the suit against January & Patterson, was produced in this case. On. the trial the Defendant took several exceptions, but not having aPPea*ec*t they are not open to examination.
The Plaintiffs also took an exception to the allowanee a credit to the Defendant. The supervisor had received the evidence of a number (if outstanding debts ^ue to Arthur, which he undertook to collect, and pro-raised to apply the proceeds to Arthur’s credit. Among was the bond, of Eeclor & Moore,. which was sued; at the trial of this suit, it appeared that the amount of that bond had actually coiné into the hands of the, agent of the person who had'been supervisor; hut that .office being extinct,”it was contended on the part of thfe United States, that the payment could not Be considered as a payment to government. The Court was of a different 0PÍn*on> ant* instructed the .jury accordingly ; to which opinion of the Court, an exception was taken, and a writ of error prosecuted.
. This Court is of opinion, that the Circuit Court er-in the-decision thus made. .The reception of the outstanding debts by1 the supervisor, for the purpose of having suits commenced for the recovery of than, was an accommodation t<> the Defendant. who could not be justly entitled to credit until the money wps in the hands qt some public officer authorised to "receive it.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bishop v. Chillingworth, 114 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1934)…late court’s judicial power ultimately to review and correct on a writ of error taken to the inferior court’s judgment. In cases where so employed, a writ of mandamus is in the nature. of a procedendo. Livingston v. Dorgenois, 7 Cranch (U. S.) *576, 3 L. Ed. 444; Ex Parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters (U. S.) 634, 8 L. Ed. 810; New York Fire & Life. Ins. Co. v. Wilson’s Heirs, [*293] 8 Peters (U. S.) 291, 8 L. Ed. 949; In re United States, 194 U. S. 194, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 629, 48 L. Ed. 931; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.…
-
The United States v. Irving, 1 How. 250 (U.S. 1843)