UNITED STATES
v.
DASHIEL

U.S. | 1866-12-01
4 Wall. 182 Supreme Court of the United States (1866) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 18 L. Ed. 319 · SCDB 1866-007 · 1866 U.S. LEXIS 869
Cited by 6 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

In a case previously decided by the Court, the defendant was tried for an action where he pleaded that money had been stolen from him as a defense or set-off against the plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the plea was improper as it could only serve as a partial set-off or abatement rather than a complete bar to the action, and the trial court erred in instructing the jury based on this frivolous defense, notwithstanding the defendant's failure to tender the amount into court as would have been required for a valid plea in bar.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice NELSON

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The question involved in this case has been already twice decided by this court, and need not again be examined. The decisions will be found in 3 Howard, 578 (United States v. Prescott and others) and 11 Ib. 160 (Same v. Morgan and others).

It is insisted on the part of the defendants that as the plea was not demurred to, but went to issue, the evidence of the robbery supported it, and that the court was therefore right in admitting it and in giving the instructions to the jury. We are not advised as respects the system of pleading that may have been adopted in the court below, but whatever it may be it can hardly justify or require the court to give an instruction to the jury contrary to law, and especially when the plea itself, as it is called, constituted no defence to the action, but was frivolous and would have been stricken from the record as such on a proper motion in the court below. This plea in answer is but a notice of special matter by way of set-off, or abatement of the amount claimed against the defendants. It went only to part of the cause of action. To have constituted it a plea in bar of the action the amount beyond the sum lost should have been tendered and brought into court, setting up the theft as to the balance.

It is urged that no exception was taken to the ruling of the court at the trial; but this is a mistake. It was taken in express terms to the particular instruction in question.

It is also insisted that the motion for a new trial in the court below was a waiver of the exception. The practice is every day otherwise.

Judgment reversed and veniee de novo.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mordt v. Robinson, 116 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1934)
    …. Civ. App.), 98 S. W. Rep. 897; Regina v. Patton, 7 U. C. D. Q. B. 83; United States v. Prescott, 3 Howard (U. S.) 578, 11 L. Ed. 734; United States v. Morgan, 11 Howard (U. S.) 154, 13 L. Ed. 643; United States v. Dashiell, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 182, 18 L. Ed. 319; Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 156, 47 L. Ed. 425, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279; State, ex rel. Cook v. Fidelity & Dep. Co. of Md., 91 W. Va. 191, 112 S. E. Rep. 319. Whether or not the court should apportion the funds remaining in the solvent bank a…
  • Smythe v. United States, 188 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1903)
    …n carrier to transmit them to the Treasury, and in doing which he is not exonerated by ordinary diligence, but must answer for losses by larceny and even robbery. 2 Salk. 919; 8 Johns. 213; Angell on Carriers, §§ 1, 9.” In United States v. Dashiel, 4 Wall. 182—which was an action on the bond of a paymaster in the army for not paying over or accounting for public money that came into his hands — the de-fence was-that without any want of proper care and vigilance on the part of the paymaster a certain part…
  • Hale Cnty. v. Am. Indem. Co., 63 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1933)
    …the intent of the laws requiring them. Loss by fire is no excuse, Smythe v. United States, 188 U. S. 156, 23 S. Ct. 279, 47 L. Ed. 425; nor is secret theft, United States v. Prescott, 3 How. 578, 31 L. Ed. 734; United States v. Dashiel, 4 Wall. 182, 18 L. Ed. 319; nor is robbery by violence, Boyden v. United States, 13 Wall. 17, 20 L. Ed. 527. Only the overpowering force of the public enemy in war has been upheld as a sufficient excuse for the loss of public money thus bailed. United States v. Thomas, 15 Wa…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw