LOONEY
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
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.
Looney brought suit against the District of Columbia to recover on auditor's certificates representing a debt owed to him by the District. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment against Looney, holding that by selling and assigning some certificates for value, exchanging others for negotiable securities which he subsequently sold, and receiving payment in money on the remainder, Looney had dealt with the certificates in a manner that prevented him from maintaining the action because the District's debt obligations had been discharged through these transactions with third parties.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:
The nature and history of the auditor’s certificates, and of the so-called sewer certificates, and other securities' issuéd by the District of Columbia, as well as the legislation of Congress relating to them, have been fully stated in opinions delivered' by the Court of Claims in other cases, and need not be recapitulated. See Fendall v. District of Columbia, 16 C. Cl. 106; Adams v. Same, 17 C. Cl. 351; Morgan, v. Same, 19. C. Cl. 156. It is enough for the purposes of this case to observe that the sewer certificates and other-interest-bearing securities of the District were negotiable instruments; and that the auditor’s certificates were not negotiable, but were merely evidence of the debt of the District to the claimant under its contract with him.
If he had kept the auditor’s certificates, he could doubtless have recovered against the District the full amount of the debt of which they were the evidence.
Hut the facts found show that he has so dealt with these certificates as to prevent him from maintaining this suit. The amount of some of the certificates he has been paid by the District in money. Others of the certificates he has sold and assigned for value, and thereby transferred the equitable title in them to the assignee, and authorized him to receive payment of their amount from the District; and the payment of that amount in full by the District to the assignee is a discharge of so much of its debt to the claimant. Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U. S. 572; Foss v. Lowell Savings Bank, 111 Mass. 285. The remaining certificates he has exchanged with the District for an equal amount of its negotiable securities, payable on time with interest, and he has since sold those securities for their value in the market. The District is liable to the purchaser, either upon those securities themselves, or upon the other bonds since taken by him instead of some of them, and cannot be also held liable to the original creditor for the same amount or any part thereof. Harris v. Johnston, 3 Cranch, 311; Emblin v. Dartnell, 1 D. & L. 591.
The conversation, which is found to have taken place between the treasurer of the District and the claimant before he sold the negotiable securities, has no tendency to prove any authority or any intention of the treasurer to make a new or different contract in behalf of the District.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States for the benefit of Sherman v. Carter, 353 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1957)…ms on behalf of workmen who supplied labor for the project directly to the contractor under an express contractual relationship with him. 4 Corbin, Contracts (1951 ed.), §891; Restatement, Contracts, § 150. See also, Looney v. District of Columbia, 113 U. S. 258; Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 5. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U. S. 24, 35; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bartlett, 231 U. S. 237, 243; United States v. Rundle, 100 F. 400, 403; United States v. Brent, 236 F. 771, 777; Bartle…
-
Donnelly v. Dist. of Columbia, 119 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1886)…[*341] TVE?.. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of Looney v. The District of Columbia, 113 U. S. 258. It having been found as a fact by the court below that no mistake had been made in reducing the contract to writing, no' questions are presented in this court on that branch of the case. Affirmed:…
-
Laughlin v. Dist. of Columbia, 116 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1886)…t authority for their collection, payment by the District to the person so invested with apparent authority, without notice of a want of actual authority, will discharge the debt. Cowdrey v. Vanderburg, 101 U. S. 572; Looney v. District of Columbia, 113 U. S. 258. The Court of Claims so held in Adams v. District of Columbia, 17 C. Cl. 351, decided at the December Term, 1881, which was but a little more than a year after the act giving that court jurisdiction in this class of cases was passed. Such being the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Memphis v. Brown, 20 Wall. 289 (U.S. 1873)
- Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U.S. 572 (U.S. 1879)
- Harris v. Johnston, 3 Cranch 311 (U.S. 1806)