A Full and Arranged Digest of the Decisions in Common Law, Equity, and Admiralty, of the Courts of the United States, Vol. 2 of 2

Bücher

Angebote / Angebote:

Excerpt from A Full and Arranged Digest of the Decisions in Common Law, Equity, and Admiralty, of the Courts of the United States, Vol. 2 of 2: From the Organization of the Government in 1789 to 1847, in the Supreme, Circuit, District and Admiralty Courts, Reported in Dallas, Cranch, Wheaton, Peters, and Howard's Supreme Court Reports, In Gallison, Mason, Paine, Peters, Washington Bury department against the defendant, who was a clerk in the navy department, upon a fixed annual salary, and acted as agent for the pay ment of moneys due to the navy pensioners, the privateer pensioners, and for navy disbursements, tor the payment of which, funds were placed in his hands by the government. He had received an annual compensation for his services in the payment of the navy pensioners, and for fifteen years he had received, in preceding accounts, commissions of one per cent. On the moneys paid by him on navy disbursements. He claimed these commissions at the treasury, and the claim had been there rejected by the accounting offi cers, and if allowed the same, he was not now indebted to the government. The United States, on the trial of the case in the circuit court, de nied the right of the defendant to these commis sions, as they had not been allowed to him by any department of the government, and asserted that the jury had not power to allow them on the trial. Held, The rejection of the claim to commissions by the treasury department formed no objection to the admission of it as evidence of set-off before the jury. Had the claim. Never been presented to the department, it could not have been admitted as evidence by the court. But, as it had been made out in form and pre sented to the proper accounting officers, and had been rejected, the circuit court did right in sub mitting it to the jury, if the claim was considered as equitable. It would be a novel principle to refuse payment to the subordinates of a depart ment, because their chief, under whose direction they had faithfully served the public, had given an erroneous construction to the law. The se cretary of the navy, in authorizing the defendant to make the disbursements on which the claim for compensation is founded, did not transcend those powers, which, under the circumstances of the case, he might well exercise. United States v. Ilfacdaniel, 7 Peters, 1. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully, any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.