UNITED STATES
v.
NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY

U.S. | 1886-04-26
118 U.S. 120 Supreme Court of the United States (1886) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 30 L. Ed. 81 · 6 S. Ct. 1006 · 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1911 · SCDB 1885-245
Cited by 226 cases

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.

Synopsis

The United States sought to enforce bond coupons it had purchased with funds held in trust for the Chickasaw Nation, but the lower court applied Tennessee's statute of limitations to bar the action. The Supreme Court held that the United States, as a sovereign government, is not bound by a state's statute of limitations unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise, and the statute did not begin to run while the United States held the securities in trust for the Indians. The judgment was reversed, establishing that sovereign immunity from statutes of limitations applies to the United States regardless of when it acquired property or the passage of time.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me. Justice G-bay,

Mr. Justice G-bay,

after stating the case as above reported," delivered the opinion of the court.

It is settled beyond doubt or controversy — upon the foundation of the great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interests should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided — that the United States, asserting rights vested in them as a sovereign government, are not bound by any statute of limitations, unless Congress has clearly manifested its intention that they should be so bound. Lindsey v. Miller, 6 Pet. 666; United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92; United States v. Thornpson, 98 U. S. 486; Fink v. O'Neil, 106 U. S. 272, 281.

The nature and legal effect of any contract, indeed, are not changed by its transfer to the United States. When the United States, through their lawfully authorized agents, become the owners of negotiable paper, they are obliged to give the same notice to charge an endorser as would be required of a private holder. United States v. Barker, 4 Wash. C. C. 464, and 12 Wheat. 559; United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 392, 393; Cooke v. United States, 91 U. S. 389, 396, 398. They take such paper subject to all the equities existing against the person from whom they purchase at the time when they acquire their title; and cannot therefore maintain an action upon it, if at that time all right of action of that person was extinguished, or was barred by the statute of limitations. United States v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12, 30; The King v. Morrall, 6 Price, 24. But if the bar of the statute is not complete when the United States become the owners and holders of the .paper, it appears to us, notwithstanding the dictum of Cowen, J., in United States v. White, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 59, 61, impossible to hold that the statute could afterwards run against the United States. Lambert v. Taylor, 4 B. & C. 138; S. C., 6 D. & R. 188.

In the present case, the United States bought the coupons sued on, and the bonds to which they were annexed, long before any of them became payable, or the statute of limitations had begun to run against the right of any holder to sue thereon. The money with which they were bought was money received by ‘the United States from the sale of lands ceded to them by the Chickasaw Nation of Indians. Those lands, the money received from their sale, and the securities in which that money was invested, were held by the United States, in trust, to be applied for the benefit of those Indians, in performance of the obligation assumed by the United States by treaties with them. The securities were thus held by the United States for a public use in the highest sense, the performance of a quasi international obligation ; and they continued to be so held until that obligation had been performed and discharged, after which they were held by the United States, like all other' property of the government, for the ordinary public uses. Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 158.

The necessary conclusion is that the statute of limitations of Tennessee never ran against the right of action of the United States upon these coupons, either while the United States held them in trust for the Indians, or since they have held them for other public uses; and that the decision of the Circuit Court was erroneous.

This case does not present the question what effect the statute of limitations may have in an action on a contract in which the United States have nothing but the formal title, and the whole interest belongs to others. See Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U. S. 490; Miller v. State, 38 Ala. 600.

Judgment reversed, and ease rem,anded, with directions to set aside the verdict, and for further proceedings in conformity with law and with this opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (69 total)

  • Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 283 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1931)
    …he Pennsylvania statute. Laws 1874, c. 32, § 15; Penn. Stat. (1920) § 5728. The United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation [*603] unless Congress provides that it shall be. United States v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 120; Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U. S. 123, 125; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U. S. 456, 462. The detailed limitation periods specified in § 280 evidence the intention that they alone shall be applicable to the…
  • Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 432 U.S. 355 (U.S. 1977)
    …any laches of their officers, however gross, in a suit brought by them as a sovereign Government to enforce a public right, or to assert a public interest, is established past all controversy or doubt. United States v. Nashville &c. Railway Company, 118 U. S. 120, 125, and cases there cited. But this case stands upon a different footing, and presents a different question. The question is, Are these defences available to the defendant in a case where the Government, although a nominal complainant party, has n…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1940)
    …1, 32, 33. It is well settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation or subject to the defense of laches in enforcing its rights. United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486; United States v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 118 U. S. 120, 125, 126; Stanley v. Schwalby, 147 U. S. 508, 514, 515; Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 126, 132; Board of Commissioners v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 351. The same rule applies whether the United States brings its suit in its own…

Previewing 3 of 69 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (14 total)

View all 14 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw