SAMUEL PECK, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

MARY YOUNG

Citator

Cited By

• Moses v. United States, 166 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1897)
  …the certificates were based, they would be conclusive in favor of the officer in any action against him. Soule v. United States, 100 U. S. 8, 11; United States v. Bell, 111 U. S. 477; Ex parte Randolph, 2 Brock. 447, 475 ; United States v. Eckford, 1 How. 250, 263; United States v. Hunt, 105 U. S. 183, 187. They would not, however, be conclusive as against evidence of the forgery of any vouchers upon which the accounts had been founded and the settlement arrived at; this is too plain for argument. It is…
• Hoyt v. The United States, 10 How. 109 (U.S. 1850)
  …th the government in the collection of the public revenue. We can hardly conceive of a case, therefore, coming more directly within the act of Congress as expounded by the cases referred to. In the case of the United States v. Eckford’s Executors (1 How. 250), a transcript corresponding with the one ih question was held to be competent evidence of the balance of the account. The point was presented in a certificate of division of opinion of the judges. It has also been-objected to these transcripts, th…
• Jones v. The Unite States, 7 How. 681 (U.S. 1849)
  …ransferred to, the. period for which alone another' set have made themselves answerable.. Such is the rule established in the cases of The United States v. January and Patterson, 7 Cranch, 572, and of The United States v. Eckford’s Executors, [*689] 1 How. 250. The case before us is free from any embarrassment of conflicting interests between separate sets of sureties. In- this case there is but one' bond; it presents the instance of an appropriation of payments between a single debtor and creditor. Upon…