UNITED STATES
v.
HICKEY
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 sought to assert a counter-claim against Hickey for unpaid rent on a lease that the government had previously assigned in full to Eldredge in 1857, thereby transferring all rights to collect rents and pursue claims under the lease. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims' decision, holding that by assigning all its rights and interests in the lease to Eldredge, the United States extinguished any claim it could have against Hickey and therefore had no valid counter-claim to assert against Hickey's demand for storage charges.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.-
By not appealing, the claimant has declared himself to be content with the disposition of the case by the Court of Claims. The appeal brings up only-the claim allowed. The rejected items, therefore, will receive no consideration, except so far as may be nécessary for a proper understanding of the item allowed.
It is said that the transaction with Hickey was an assignment to him by the United States, and not an under-letting. It was not an assignment, as the terms between the United States and Hickey were different from those between Eldredge and the United States. The United States agreed to paj' $6000 per month, and had a privilege of an appraisement at their option. Hickey agreed to pay $500 per month only for the first two months, was' to have in substance a deduction of $250 for eveiy month thereafter by the United States, and no rent after May 1st was fixed unless an appraisal should be made.* It is difficult, however, to see the importance of the difference in this proceeding, whether it was an assignment-or subletting. The short answer to the counter-claim is that the United States had assigned to Eldredge all their claim and -demand for the rent upon this -lease^ and therefore could have no claim against Hickey by virtue of it. The rent was paid by Hickey to May 1st, 1856. After that time he refused to pay rent, on the ground that there-was no appraisal fixing the amount. No appraisal has ever been made. No evidence was given before the Court of Claims of the rental, value of the premises, and I see not how more than nominal value could'in any event be claimed. But beyond this, the United States, on the 13th of April, 1857, transferred and assigned to Eldredge all their right, title, and interest in and to the lease, and authorized him to .sue for arid recover the rents reserved to the United States as fully as they could do. It was added, “ it being distinctly understood that it is the object and purpose of this agreement to put the said Eldredge in the place and stead of the -United States,-so far as concerns the rights of the United States under the lease aforesaid.” It was by’virtue of the ownership of the lease acquired under this assignment that Eldredge -took proceedings in the California courts, which resulted in the eviction and dispossession of Hickey from the premises described in the lease. This assignment, in the terms stated, carried all the interest in the rents already accrued as well as rents thereafter to accrue. It was broad and comprehensive, carrying every interest in or connected with or arising out of the lease. There was no claim or demand against Hickey existing in the United States under this lease, and consequently there was no counter-claim to be interposed against his demand for storage allowed by the judgment appealed from. The decision of the Court of Claims was right and must be
Affirmed.
*
2 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 327, n.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Line Co., 290 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1934)…s to these claims in conformity with the views expressed in this opinion and to respect the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals on the .third and fourth claims and the remittitur given thereunder. Judgments • reversed. United States v. Hickey, 17 Wall. 9, 13; United States v. Blackfeather, 155 U.S. 180, 186; Chittenden v. Brewster, 2 Wall. 191, 196; The William Bagaley, 5 Wall. 377; Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561, 568; The Maria Martin, 12 Wall. 31, 40-41; New Orleans Mail Co. v. Flanders, 12 Wall…
-
Cochran v. M & M Transp. Co., 110 F.2d 519 (1st Cir. 1940)…ils to do so he can be heard only in support of the judgment as rendered; such judgment becomes res judicata as to the issues decided against him. Alexander v. Cosden Co., 1934, 290 U.S. 484, 487, 54 S.Ct. 292, 78 L.Ed. 452; United States v. Hickey, 17 Wall. 9, 21 L.Ed. 559. In the latter case the plaintiff sued the United States on three distinct claims and had favorable judgment on one only; upon appeal by the United States it was held that the plaintiff-appellee, who did not cross-appeal, could be hea…
-
United States v. Ewing, 140 U.S. 142 (U.S. 1891)…pon the authority of United States v. Jones, 134 U. S. 483, appear to have been properly allowable, but as no appeal was taken by the plaintiff from the disallowance of such items we do not feel at liberty to 'Consider them. United States v. Hickey, 17 Wall. 9. The case will he remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate the judgment heretofore rendered, and enter a new judgment in conformity to this opinion.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence