Subrogation of Surety in Bail-bond in Criminal Cases. See SUBROGATION, 4, 5. Prize- Right of Non-commissioned Captor — Public Lands - Appeal in Proceedings for — See APPEAL-TAKING AND PERFECTING, 12. Public Lands Disposal Lands in New - See LANDS OF UNITED STATES-TITLE. Public Lands Land of Confederacy became Property of Government on Fall of Confederacy. See CONFISCATION, 15. Purchaser of Lands sold for Direct Taxes under Acts of 1861 et seq. Rights as such. See DIRECT TAX. See RECEIVER OF PUBLIC MONEY. Right to call Citizen to Seat of Government. Riparian Proprietor in City of Washington- See WASHINGTON, 2. Seizure for Forfeiture - Adoption when See DUTIES-PENALTIES AND FORFEIT- Supremacy Government may use Force in Territories - Power of the Government over. War Power-Legal-tender Acts not an Ex- See TENDER, 10 et seq. UNITED STATES LIABILITY Liability on Contracts, in general· For Property used and destroyed in Military Service - For Money paid to bribe Officer - For Lost Proceeds of Confiscation Proceedings — Liability on Award As Holder or Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, etc. See pl. 1-28. 1. Liability on Contracts, in general For Property used and destroyed in Military Service - For Money paid to bribe OfficerFor Lost Proceeds of Confiscation Proceedings Liability on Award - As Holder or Acceptor of Bill of Exchange, etc.] The court of claims, in the construction and enforcement of contracts with the government, is bound to apply the prin ciples which govern like contracts between individuals. United States v. Smoot, 15 Wal. 36. offering to perform, cannot maintain a suit for 2. Thus, a contractor, neither preparing nor profits he might have made by performance under prior regulations, the adoption of such regulaRailroads to which Public Land has been receive performance according to the terms of the tions not amounting to notice of a refusal to granted on Condition, etc.— Right to Use of contract, nor disabling the government from perSee LANDS OF UNITED STATES LEGIS-forming, and one or the other of those effects LATIVE GRANTS, 39. being necessary, as in any case of contract for Powers of Government in Case of. the delivery of personal property, to absolve the See REBELLION. contractor. lb. UNITED STATES LIABILITY— continued. other property lost in such service. Stuart v. United States, 18 Wal. 84. 9. Property alleged to have been captured UNITED STATES — LIABILITY — continued. 3. Where the government unjustifiably sus pends the work of a contractor who has agreed to supply the skilled labor and the materials necessary for the erection of buildings for gov-"by a band of hostile Indians," no further details ernment use, it is liable in the court of claims for such damage as he has sustained, the government in such case being bound by the same rule that applies in the case of individuals. United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214. 4. Where the owner of a steamboat is ordered by a federal military officer, on pain of imprisonment, to fit her to carry a cargo to a particular place for a per diem compensation, and the owner, although protesting, fits her, and proceeds on the voyage with his own officers and crew, the government is a mere freighter; and if the boat deliver her cargo, but the return voyage be broken up by her running aground, the government will | be liable for such compensation reckoned to the time when the boat, but for the disaster, would have completed her return trip, and for nothing more. Reed v. United States, 11 Wal. 591. 5. Thus, the government is not liable for the expenses of a pilot and a crew sent to get the boat off, although sent on consultation with the government officer, and with a view to the protection of the interest of the government as well as that of the owner. Ib. 6. Where a steamer, lying at a wharf in a port on one of the great rivers, was taken into the government service by a quartermaster, for a trip to different points on the river, the compensation being stated to the captain at the time, and no objection being made to the service or the compensation, and the possession, command, and management of the steamer being retained by the owner during the service, the government was held to be charterer on a contract of affreightment, and not liable thereunder for the value of the steamer, which was destroyed by fire on her return trip, without fault of the owner. [MILLER, J., dissenting.] Shaw v. United States, 93 U. S. 235. being given, cannot be said to have been captured" by an enemy," within the meaning of that term as used in the act of 1849. Ib. 10. A suit cannot be maintained against the United States in the court of claims, on a contract with the president for secret services rendered during the war, the public disclosure of such a contract being against public policy. Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105. 11. A claim cannot be maintained against the United States for money paid by the claimant to an army officer as a bribe, and taken from him by the United States. Clark v. United States, 102 U. S. 322. 12. Where, pending proceedings for the condemnation of property seized under the confiscation act, the property was sold by order of court and the proceeds paid over to the clerk, who deposited the same to his credit in a national bank, duly recognized as a depositary of public money, and the bank failed and the money was lost, and in the confiscation proceedings judgment was rendered for the owner of the property, it was held that the owner had no claim against the United States by reason of the loss of the money, the money not having been paid into the treasury. Branch v. United States, 100 U. S. 673. 13. A distiller compelled by the United States to buy meters, one of which was never used, and the other of which failed to work properly, cannot recover their cost from the United States, the pecuniary result to him being no worse than though they had worked well. Finch v. United States, 102 U. S. 269. 14. Where the cashier of a United States sub-treasury embezzles money and lends it, and the borrower, for the purpose of concealing the embezzlement during an examination of the funds in the sub-treasury about to be made, by 7. Where, without express contract and in the fraudulent representations to the cashier of a absence of military exigency, subsister ce stores bank, procures gold certificates to be deposited were taken into custody by army officers on the in the sub-treasury, the bank acting in good faith frontier and afterwards used in part, in part care- and in the usual course of business, and the lessly destroyed, and in part spoiled by natural cashier being privy to the fraud whereby the causes, the owner having left, but without intent borrower procures the certificates, the bank may to abandon, that part of the country, where, had recover from the government the gold reprehe remained, the disturbed state of affairs would sented by the certificates. The government canhave prevented him from taking care of the prop-not hold money against the claim of an innocent erty, the government was charged with what was so used and destroyed, at its value at the time it was received, and not at its value when it was so used, etc. United States v. Gill, 20 Wal. 517. 8. One who has contracted with the government to transport from port to port remote from any seat of war, stores and supplies not those of an advancing or retreating army, is not, while engaged therein, "in the military service," within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1849, § 2 (9 Sts. 414), providing for payment for horses and party, where it has gone into the treasury through the fraud of its agent. The rules of law applicable to an individual in such a case apply to the government. United States v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30. 15. Otherwise, as to a draft procured by the borrower from the bank by similar fraudulent representations, but received by the cashier of the sub-treasury under circumstances not imputing to him knowledge of the fact that the draft was not the property of the borrower. In 16. A joint resolution of congress authorizing the head of a department to "investigate and adjust a claim against the government, on a prescribed basis, there being no mutuality of assent, and no consideration, does not bind the government as by an award, and the authority may be revoked by a repeal of the resolution. Chorpenning v. United States, 94 U. S. 397. UNITED STATES - LIABILITY - continued. 24. And, there being under existing laws no occasion for a public officer to accept bills on behalf of the government, such an officer cannot bind the government by making such an acceptance. 16. 25. Acceptance of a bill of exchange by a public officer in payment for government supplies in advance of their delivery, is, like payment in advance in any other form, in contravention of the act of January 31, 1823, § 1 (3 Sts. 723). Ib. 26. Thus, acceptances on long time, of bills drawn on the secretary of war, by army contractors, for supplies not yet furnished, and to be charged to account of the contract, were held to be without authority and void. [NELson, Grier, and CLIFFORD, JJ., dissenting, on the ground that the bills were drawn on a particular fund which might or might not be sufficient to pay them, and so not negotiable.] 1b. 17. Where a vessel, the property of a Spanish subject, was captured by the army, or by the army and navy operating together, chartered, and used for a time by the government, and finally brought in and libelled as prize, and, restitution being ordered, proceedings were stayed to await an amicable settlement of demurrage by the two governments, and after some delay the state department requested that the question be referred 27. Under the act of March 2, 1861 (12 Sts. to the court, which still had jurisdiction, it was 220), providing that purchases of government held that the government was bound by the sub-supplies shall be upon advertisement for proposmission, although no express legislative authority als, except where public exigencies require imhad been conferred on the executive to make it, mediate delivery, the determination of the exist and that a decree might be entered for the demur-ence of such exigency is in the discretion of the The Nuestra Señora de Regla, 108 U. S. officer in charge of the matter; and the validity of the contract does not depend on the degree of wisdom with which such discretion is exercised. United States v. Speed, 8 Wal. 77. rage. 92. 18. If the government, through its authorized agent, become the holder of a bill of exchange, it is bound to use the same diligence, to charge the indorser, that a private holder would be bound United States v. Barker, 12 Wheat. to use. 559. 19. If the United States, through an authorized officer, accept a bill of exchange, it is bound for its payment to a bona fide holder for value, whatever the equities between it and the drawee. United States v. Metropolis Bank, 15 Pet. 377. 20. The federal government has a right to make use of bills of exchange in conducting its fiscal operations; and where it becomes a party to such a bill, its rights and liabilities thereunder are to be determined by the same rules which are applied where the party is a person. The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wal. 666. 21. Where it becomes a party, e. g., by acceptance, by the action of some public officer or authorized agent, as if it become a party it must, the authority of such officer or agent may be inquired into in the same way that the authority of an agent of a person may be. lb. 22. Authority in such cases depends on the same principles that determine authority in other contracts, the holder not being aided by the doctrine which in some circumstances extends to the innocent holders of negotiable paper more liberal protection than is given to the holders of other obligations. Ib. 28. That part of rule No. 1179 of the army regulations of 1863 which requires contracts for subsistence stores to provide for their termination at such time as the commissary-general may direct, has no application to a contract for slaughtering and packing a definite number of hogs. Ib. 29. Liability on Contracts entered into by Public Officers - For Laches or Wrongful Acts of Public Officers.] A contract by a medical purveyor for supplies of ice for hospital use will not bind the government without the approval of the secretary of war, the purveyor having no power to bind the government in such case. Parish v. United States, 8 Wal. 489. 30. Nor will a lease by a local assistant quartermaster of property for the use of the quartermaster's department, until it is approved by the quartermaster-general, although approved by the local military commander. Filor v. United States, 9 Wal. 45. 31. The assistant surgeon-general at St. Louis, during the war, had authority to bind the government by a contract for the purchase of ice for the sick of the western armies. His order, until revoked or disapproved by the surgeon-general, was valid and binding, without ratification by that official. And a suspension of the order by the surgeon-general was not a revocation or disapproval. Parish v. United States, 100 U. S. 23. There being by law no express authority for a public officer to draw or accept bills of ex-500. change, authority can exist only where such bills are the appropriate means for the exercise of other and admitted powers. Ib. 32. The act of June 2, 1862 (12 Sts. 411), requiring contracts for military supplies to be in writing, does not preclude an officer in authority UNITED STATES · LIABILITY — continued. UNITED STATES- LIABILITY continued. from accepting delivery of supplies after the day of claims with direction for settlement, according stipulated, nor is a verbal agreement to extend to the rules and regulations theretofore adopted the time of performance invalid; and, if otherwise, the receipt and use of the supplies after the day would bind the government to pay their value, to be estimated, in the absence of other evidence, at the price fixed by the contract. Salomon v. United States, 19 Wal. 17. 33. Under authority given by the secretary of the treasury to supervising special agents to enter into written contracts in relation to certain matters, an assistant special agent cannot bind the government by a verbal contract. Camp v. United States, 113 U. S. 648. 34. The United States is not responsible for the laches or the wrongful acts of its officers. Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316. 35. The illegality of a transaction which is, in effect, a private sale, without survey, inspection, or appraisement, at a grossly inadequate price, of old material obtained from breaking up ships of war, is not cured by the settlement of the buyer's accounts by the officers of the navy department, nor by lapse of time. Steele v. United States, 113 U. S. 128. 36. On a suit against the sureties on the official bond of a postmaster, it is no defence that the government, through its agent, had full notice of the defalcation and embezzlement of government funds by the postmaster, and, notwithstanding such knowledge, negligently permitted him to remain in office, and so enabled him to commit the embezzlement and default complained of. Jones v. United States, 18 Wal. 662. 37. The government is not bound by the act of its agent, unless it clearly appear that he acted within the scope of his authority, or was employed as a public agent to do, or was held out as having authority to do, such act. Whiteside v. United States, 93 U. S. 247. 38. The same rule applies to erroneous declarations of a public officer, arising in mistake of fact. Lee v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 366. 39. The government is not estopped to deny the validity of unauthorized acts of a military officer assuming to act in other than a military capacity, a lease, for instance, by an assistant quartermaster of property, for the use of the quartermaster's department, however beneficial such acts may have been. Filor v. United States, 9 Wal. 45. by the United States in the settlement of like cases, and without regard to the statute of limitations, it was held, that as the claim would have been within the purview of an earlier act, which allowed interest on similar claims, but for its being within the bar of a proviso not in any way affecting its merits, interest should be allowed, although such allowance is not according to the usages of the treasury department, in the absence of special legislation authorizing it. [CLIFFORD and HUNT, JJ., dissenting.] United States v. McKee, 91 U. S. 442. 42. Where, under the act of July 28, 1866, § 8 (14 Sts. 329), the court grants a certificate that there was probable cause for an act of a federal officer for which judgment is rendered against him, the amount payable out of the treasury does not include interest on the judgment accrued before the certificate was given. United States v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565. LIMITATION United UNITED STATES States not bound by State Statutes of Limitation No Adverse Possession against it.] The United States is not bound by a state statute of limitations, whether named therein or not. Smith v. United States, 5 Pet. 292; United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486. 2. The provision of the judiciary act that the laws of the several states shall be regarded as rules of decision in the federal courts, has no application to the matter. United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486. 3. There can be no adverse possession to set the statute in motion against the title of the gov ernment. Lindsey v. Miller, 6 Pet. 666. 4. A trespasser on public lands can acquire no title by his possession as against the United States. Jourdan v. Barrett, 4 How. 169. UNITED STATES — PRIORITY OF PAYMENT UNITED STATES — PRIORITY OF PAYMENT - Surety's Right of Subrogation -Suits by Gov-3, 1863 (12 Sts. 765), giving to the court of 1. Construction of Statute What it confers What Debtors embraced Right, how lost, and how enforced, etc.] Congress has power to make a law giving a preference to the United States in cases of insolvency of its general debtors, as well as of persons accountable for public money. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358. 2. Section 5 of the act of March 3, 1797 (1 Sts. 512), giving such preference, applies to both classes of government debtors. Ib. 3. The statutes giving the government a right to priority of payment should receive a fair and reasonable interpretation, according to the just import of their terms. United States v. North Carolina State Bank, 6 Pet. 29. 4. Under that act the United States is entitled to a priority of payment, but not to a lien. United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73; Beaston v. Farmer's Bank, 12 Pet. 102. 5. Mere inability to pay all his debts does not bring one within the provision of the act. United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73. 6. The assignment mentioned is of all the property of the debtor, leaving him in a state equivalent to technical insolvency. Ib. 7. The insolvency necessary under the act of 1797 and the act of March 2, 1799, § 65 (1 Sts. 676), to give the United States a priority, is a legal insolvency, and not a mere failure or inability to pay. Prince v. Bartlett, 8 Cranch, 431; Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396; Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 386; Beaston v. Farmer's Bank, 12 Pet. 102. 8. The priority given by the act of 1797 did not extend to a debt contracted before, although the balance was adjusted at the treasury after, the act was passed. United States v. Bryan, 9 Cranch, 374. 9. The right of preference given by the act of 1799 cannot reach such of the debtor's estate as the debtor has conveyed to a third person in good faith, or as he has mortgaged to secure a debt, or as has been seized in execution, and is so devested out of the debtor before the accrual of that right. Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396; Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 386; Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291. 10. But it will take precedence of the lien of a judgment thereon, in a case coming within the act. Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396. See Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 386. 11. A demand by the United States for the proceeds of trust bonds unlawfully converted is a claims jurisdiction of set-offs, etc., be set off to a claim by the assignee in insolvency of the person against whom it arises for pay for property of the insolvent sold by the assignee; and this, although the amount of such proceeds has not been judicially ascertained, as it may be stated with certainty and the interest may be ascertained by computation. Allen v. United States, 17 Wal. 207. 12. An assignment for the benefit of creditors, to entitle the United States to a priority under the act of 1799, must be of all the debtor's property. United States v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108. 13. And if it do not purport to be of all, the burden of proving that it in fact is so, is on the government. Ib. 14. The priority under the act of 1799 is a right to prior payment out of the funds in the hands of assignees, and does not prevent the property assigned from vesting in them, nor affect a mortgage of part of the debtor's property made to secure a bona fide debt. Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Pet. 386; Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291. 15. A judgment obtained by the government after the debtor has filed his petition in insolvency, but before he has made an assignment, is entitled to priority. Hunter v. United States, 5 Pet. 173. 16. The right of the government to priority in case of a general assignment by its debtor extends to a bond for duties, executed before, but payable after, the assignment. United States v. North Carolina State Bank, 6 Pet. 29. 17. On an assignment by an insolvent firm for the benefit of its creditors, the government can have no right to a priority for the payment of the debt of one of the partners, the interest of a partner being his share only of what may remain after payment of the partnership debts. United States v. Hack, 8 Pet. 271. 18. An attachment of a fund at suit of a private creditor, by a writ in the nature of an execution, is not displaced by a subsequent attachment at suit of the United States. Beaston v. Farmers' Bank, 12 Pet. 102. And see Prince v. Bartlett, 8 Cranch, 431. 19. If the assignees of an insolvent debtor have notice of a claim of the United States, an order of a state court will not protect them in distributing the fund to other creditors. Field v. United States, 9 Pct. 182. 20. If any of the property come to their hands subject to liens, the liens must be satisfied out of that property, not out of the general fund. Ib. 21. The assignees are liable to the United States only for money received, not for the price of goods sold on an unexpired credit. 1b. |