THE UNITED STATES AGAINST PRISCILLA BARKER, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ABRAHAM BARKER, DECEASED
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 the administratrix of Abraham Barker's estate to recover on dishonored bills of exchange that had been transmitted to the U.S. Treasury. The Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment for the defendant, holding that the United States failed to provide timely notice of the bills' dishonor as required by the law of bills of exchange, and therefore could not recover on the claim.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief J ustice Marshal!,
delivered the opinion of the Court: Thai whatever doubts might be entertained as to the charge of the Court below relating to the transactions in England, (which it has not been thought necessary to state,) in respect to the protest and transmission of the bills, we think there is none as to what took place after their arrival at the treasury of the United States. The (piestiou was, whether notice of the dishonour of the bills was transmitted to the party within the time prescribed by the general law in resp'ect to bills of exchange. The Court were of opinion, that there was negligence either at Washington or New-York, as to giving such notice; and that the notice actually given was too late to fix him with the responsibility. The letter from the treasury department giving the notice; was .either not sent in due course of mail to New-York, or there was negligence at New-York in not giving notice there as early as it should have been given, after the letter arrived at that city. Whether, therefore, the Judge erred or not, as to the first part of his charge, in respect to the transmission of the bills from England in a reasonable time, there was no doubt that the U idled States had no right to recover on account of the neglect in giving due notice after the return of the bills.
Upon, this ground, the judgment of the Circuit Cauri; was affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
United States v. Summerlin, 140 Fla. 475 (Fla. 1939)…rderly and expeditious administration of estates and other businesses because of the extent to which the Federal Government has become a competitor in them. Brooks v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 106 Fla. 412, 143 So. 749; United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat. 559, 25 U. S. 599, 6 L. Ed. 728; Cook, et al., v. United States, 91 U. S. 389, 23 L. Ed. 237. [*478] In this holding, we have not overlooked the cases cited by appellant. They have been read but they do not apply to statutes such as we are confronted wi…
-
Marion and Mary A. S. Sanderson v. Sanderson's Administrators, 20 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1883)
-
United States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1940)…lication of the law merchant as to the transfer of negotiable paper and the diligence necessary to charge an endorser or as to the incurring by the United States of certain responsibilities by becoming a party to such paper. United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat. 559; Cooke v. United States, 91 U. S. 389, 396. Even as a holder of such paper, [*417] as e.g. negotiable bonds, the United States suing the maker is not bound by a state statute of limitations. United States v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., supra. Wh…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence