HART
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Hart brought suit against the United States regarding distilled spirits removed from a distillery warehouse in violation of federal tax law. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment against Hart, holding that the government is not liable for the wrongful acts or negligence of its officers and that a surety on an official bond assumes the risk of losses resulting from official misconduct unless the government expressly agrees otherwise.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The second defence relied upon in this case is disposed of by Osborne v. United States, 19 Wall. 577, which we are not inclined to reconsider. The third defence is equally bad. Under the law as it stood when this suit was commenced, no distilled spirits could be removed from a distillery warehouse before payment of the tax, 15 Stat. 130, sect. 15, without subjecting all those engaged in such a removal to heavy penalties, id. 140, sect.
36. An officer of the United States had no authority to dispense with this requirement of the law. If in violation of his duty he permitted such a removal, he subjected himself to -punishment, but did not bind the government by his acts. The government is not responsible for the laches or .the wrongful acts of its officers. Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720; United States v. Vanzandt, 11 id. 184; United States v. Nicholl, 12 id. 505; Jones et al. v. United States, 18 Wall.
662. Every surety upon an official bond to the government is presumed to enter into his contract with a full knowledge of this principle of law, and to consent to be dealt with accordingly. The government' enters into no contract with him that its officers shall perform their duties. A government may be a loser by the negligence of its officers, but it never becomes bound to others for the consequences of such neglect, unless it be by express agreement to that effect. Here the surety was aware of the lien which the law gave as security for the payment of the tax.. He also knew that, in order to retain this lien, the government must rely upon the diligence and honesty of its agents. If they performed their duties and preserved the security; it inured to his benefit as well as that of the government; but if by neglect or misconduct they lost it, the government did not come under obligations to make good the loss to. him, or, what is the same thing, release him pro tanto from the obligation of his bond. As between himself and the' government, he took the risk of the effect of official negligence upon the security which the law provided for his protection against loss by reason of the liability he assumed.
There was no error in striking out that portion of the-first defence, which was objected to. It was not responsive to any allegation in the petition. Judgment affirmed. -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs. of Crawford Cnty., Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1984)…ee Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U. S., at 789 (per curiam). See United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60, 70 (1940); Sutton v. United States, 256 U. S. 575 (1921); Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 291 (1902); Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316 (1877). See also Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U. S. 180 (1957). Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purport…
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1917)…estopped by acts of its officers or agents in entering into an arrangement or agreement to do or cause to be done what the law does not sanction or permit. Lee v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 366; Filor v. United States, 9 Wall. 45, 49; Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316; Pine River Logging Co. v. United States, 186 U. S. 279, 291. As presenting another ground of estoppel it is said that the agents in the forestry service and other officers and employees of the Government, with knowledge of what the defendants were…
-
Royal Indem. Co. v. United States, 313 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1941)…rdinate officers of the United States are without that power, save only as it has been conferred upon them by Act of Congress or is to be implied from other powers so granted. Whiteside v. United States, 93 U. S. 247, 256-257; Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316, 318; Hawkins v. United States, 96 U. S. 689, 691; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 389, 409; Wilber National Bank v. United States, 294 U. S. 120, 123-124; cf. United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495, 501; Ritter v. United States, 28…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The United States v. Kirkpatrick and others, 9 Wheat. 720 (U.S. 1824)
- Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269 (U.S. 1868)
- Jones v. United States, 18 Wall. 662 (U.S. 1873)
- Osborne v. United States, 19 Wall. 577 (U.S. 1873)