Halliburton v. United States

80 U.S. 63, 20 L. Ed. 533, 13 Wall. 63, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1312
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedFebruary 18, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 80 U.S. 63 (Halliburton v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Halliburton v. United States, 80 U.S. 63, 20 L. Ed. 533, 13 Wall. 63, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1312 (1872).

Opinions

Mr. Justice STRONG

delivered the opinion of the court.

What we have said in the case just decided leads to the conclusion that the judgment in this case must be affirmed.

Looking to the declaration and the plea it appears that the bond had become absolute more than a month before the ordinance of secession was passed, and that all that time Halliburton was in default. The plea does not aver that there was any obstacle in the way of payment at the time when by law the payment was required to be made, or for a considerable period thereafter. If, then, it were sufficiently averred that after the 1st of June, 1861, payment was prevented by public enemies, there would still appear a default of the obligors, for which no excuse is offered, a fault which led directly to the loss of the public money. All the reasons, therefore, which have been mentioned in the case of Bevans v. United States, why the evidence there offered was insufficient to establish a defence, concur in justifying the judgment given upon this demurrer.

This disposes of the principal error insisted on. To the other error assigned—namely, the refusal of the court to admit evidence of payments made and of an alleged set-off—the fourth section of the act of Congress of March 3d, 1797, is a sufficient answer. What was offered and rejected was not any claims presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury, and by them disallowed. And it was not pretended that the defendants were at the trial in possession of vouchers not before in their power to procure. The evidence was, therefore, properly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wiley v. City of Sparta
114 S.E. 45 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
County of Mecklenburg v. Beales
69 S.E. 1032 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1911)
Smythe v. United States
188 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court, 1903)
United States v. Patterson
91 F. 854 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1899)
Yates v. United States
90 F. 57 (Ninth Circuit, 1898)
United States v. Wade
75 F. 261 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1896)
Railroad Co. v. United States
101 U.S. 543 (Supreme Court, 1880)
United States v. Howland
1 N.M. 550 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1873)
Halliburton v. United States
80 U.S. 63 (Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 U.S. 63, 20 L. Ed. 533, 13 Wall. 63, 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halliburton-v-united-states-scotus-1872.