A debtor of the United States who puts evidence of debts due to
himself into the hands of a public officer of the United States to
collect and apply the money, when received, to the credit of such
debtor in account with the United States is not entitled to such
credit until the money gets into the hands of a public officer of
the United States entitled to receive it. Its being in the hands of
an agent of a person who at the time when the claims were put into
his hands for collection was a public officer of the United States,
entitled to receive debts due to the United States, but whose
office became extinct before the money was received by his agent,
is not sufficient to entitle such debtor to a credit in account
with the United States therefor.
The case was submitted without argument, and DUVALL, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
Page 11 U. S. 576
This case has been considered in connection with that against
January & Patterson.
A suit was instituted on the bond dated 23 March, 1799, against
Arthur & Patterson, and pending the suit Arthur died. The
defendant pleaded performance, to which the plaintiffs replied,
alleging as a breach of the condition, that the stipulations
therein contained had not been performed, and that the defendant
was in arrear to the plaintiffs, the sum of $16,181.15 1/2,
&c., on which issue was joined.
The evidence exhibited in the suit against January &
Patterson was produced in this case. On the trial, the defendant
took several exceptions, but not having appealed, they are not open
to examination.
The plaintiffs as took an exception to the allowance of a credit
to the defendant. The supervisor had received the evidence of a
number of outstanding debts due to Arthur, which he undertook to
collect, and promised to apply the proceeds to Arthur's credit.
Among them was the bond of Beelor & Moore which was sued; at
the trial of this suit, it appeared that the amount of that bond
had actually come into the hands of the agent of the person who had
been supervisor, but that office being extinct, it was contended on
the part of the United States, that the payment could not be
considered as a payment to government. The court was of a different
opinion, and instructed the jury accordingly, to which opinion of
the court an exception was taken and a writ of
error prosecuted.
This Court is of opinion that the circuit court erred in the
decision thus made. The reception of the outstanding debts by the
supervisor for the purpose of having suits commenced for the
recovery of them was an accommodation to the defendant, who could
not be justly entitled to credit until the money was in the hands
of some public officer authorized to receive it.
Judgment reversed.
