If a Treasury agent for the collection of cotton, who was
convicted by a military commission of defrauding the United States
and was sentenced to pay a fine, and paid the fine and was then
released, consents after his release that the money may pass into
the Treasury, he cannot maintain an action in the Court of Claims
to recover it back on an implied contract to refund it either on
the ground that the fine was illegally imposed or that it was paid
under duress.
The facts making the case fully appear in the opinion of the
Court. The case below is reported 16 Ct.Cl. 361.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case made by the finding of facts in the court below is
substantially as will be now stated.
On the 14th day of August, 1865, the President of the United
States instructed Major General Thomas, commanding the military
division embracing the State of Alabama, to examine whether frauds
were not being practiced by Treasury agents in the collection of
cotton, and to cause those ascertained to be guilty, whether
connected with the Treasury Department or with the military forces,
to be dealt with in the most summary manner.
Previous to that time, about July 1, 1865, the claimant, Carver,
was a sub-agent for the collection of cotton in behalf of the
government, and, with another, was so engaged in Choctaw County in
that state. His authority as such agent terminated August 5, 1865.
But, under certain regulations then recently adopted, he became a
bonded special agent of the Treasury Department for the collection
of cotton in the same county, and in that capacity entered upon his
duties on
Page 111 U. S. 610
the 29th day of August, 1865. He was superseded on the 16th of
September thereafter, but while in office he collected and
appropriated, in connection with others, about 600 bales of cotton,
none of which was ever turned over to or received by the United
States.
On October 4, 1865, the claimant having been previously
arrested, a military commission, under an order of the general
commanding the Department of Alabama, was convened for his trial,
and he was tried and found guilty of numerous frauds practiced by
him while holding and exercising the office of bonded special agent
of the Treasury Department. The sentence imposed upon him was a
fine of $90,000,
"to be paid into the Treasury of the United States, and that he
be confined at hard labor in such penitentiary as the commanding
general may direct for the term of one year and until such fine of
ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) shall be paid."
The finding and sentence were approved by the department
commander, and the provost marshal general was required to see that
the sentence was carried into effect.
On November 7, 1865, the claimant paid the fine, and so much of
the sentence as imposed imprisonment was remitted by the department
commander. Carver was thereupon released from arrest. Out of the
amount recovered from the claimant, the government paid one-fourth
to W. M. Moulton as compensation for his giving information of the
alleged frauds and preparing the case for trial. The balance was
covered into the Treasury.
After Carver's trial and conviction, and after the payment of
the fine imposed upon him, he endeavored to make amends for the
frauds of which he was found guilty. He proposed to the department
commander to make a full statement of cotton transactions in that
county in which the government was concerned and of which he had
any knowledge or information provided the $90,000 collected from
him was allowed as a credit on his accounts; also to guarantee the
further recovery of from $10,000 to $15,000, he receiving a fair
interest, say one-fourth, for such recovery, which was to be had
without suit or expense to the government. The Secretary of the
Page 111 U. S. 611
Treasury, in a communication to the department commander,
signified his willingness
"to consider the $90,000 collected from Carver in the form of a
fine as a credit for that amount on any account the government may
have against him growing out of his connection with cotton in
Choctaw County, and to allow him for his services, expenses, etc.,
in the premises, 33 1/3 percent of any further sums he may recover
and pay over for the benefit of the national Treasury on said
account."
Subsequently, on May 17, 1866, Carver submitted to the Secretary
of the Treasury a communication, signed by himself, showing that
the amount really due the government on cotton collected was
$94,243.35, instead of $90,000, and asked the decision of that
officer "whether said balance of $4,243.35 shall be collected, or
whether, under all the circumstances, said balance shall be
relinquished." On June 14, 1866, Carver paid said balance of
$4,243.35 to the Provost Marshal of Alabama, who, by order of the
Secretary of the Treasury, paid to him the sum of $1,414.45.
The present action was commenced by Carver on December 15, 1871.
It proceeds upon these grounds: that the charges against him before
the military commission were false and feigned; that the military
commission by which he was tried was without jurisdiction in the
premises, since he, not being in the military service nor a
contractor for military arms or supplies, was not subject to trial
otherwise than in the civil courts; also that its proceedings were
wholly unauthorized, illegal, and void. For these reasons, he
claimed that an action as upon implied promises and contracts had
accrued to him against the United States for money had and received
to his use and benefit, and for said sum of $90,000 he prayed
judgment. His petition was dismissed.
The claim of appellant is entirely without merit. Under the
findings of fact, which this Court must accept as true, it is
unnecessary to consider any question involving the authority and
jurisdiction of the military commission before which the claimant
was arraigned and by means of which the government compelled him to
pay into its Treasury the sum of $90,000, for if it were conceded
that Carver was not subject to be
Page 111 U. S. 612
tried in that mode, and that the entire proceedings against him
were illegal and void, it yet appears that after his release, he
voluntarily conceded that there was justly due from him to the
government a larger sum than he had paid, and upon the basis of
that concession, he secured a credit upon his accounts for the
amount he had so paid, receiving out of the balance admitted to be
due from and chargeable to him the sum of $1,414.45. We can imagine
no reason why it was not competent for him, without reference to
the legality of the proceedings before the military commission, to
come to an understanding with the authorized officers of the
government substantially upon the basis suggested by him and
acceded to by them. Even if the original payment to the government
was under duress, he had the right subsequently to agree, as he
did, that what the government coerced him to pay was in fact fairly
due upon a proper settlement of his accounts. And when, by way of
supplement to and in execution of that agreement, he accepted, as
compensation for his services or as a gratuity, a portion of the
balance justly due from him, he is estopped to raise any question
as to the legality of the methods employed to collect from him what
should have been paid without compelling the government to expend
for its collection the large sum that was allowed Moulton for his
services.
The judgment is affirmed.