Sthreshley and Obannon v. United States

Supreme Court

Sthreshley and Obannon v. United States

8 U.S. 169, 2 L. Ed. 584, 4 Cranch 169, 1807 U.S. LEXIS 375

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 28, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 U.S. 169 (Sthreshley and Obannon 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

Sthreshley and Obannon v. United States, 8 U.S. 169, 2 L. Ed. 584, 4 Cranch 169, 1807 U.S. LEXIS 375 (1807).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, that the power of the officer to collect the outstanding duties ceased upon his removal from office, and devolved upon his successor. A contrary construction would be extremely injurious to the revenues of the United States, and could not have been intended by the legislature. The officer can only be liable to pay over the money he has collected, unless he is charged with a neglect of duty in not collecting.

In the present case, the breach assigned is for not paying, and no breach is assigned in not collecting, the duties. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant Sthreshley had paid over and accounted for all the duties he had collected.

Judgment reversed.

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

Marshall, Ch. J.,

delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, that the power of the officer to collect the outstanding duties ceased upon his removal from office, and devolved upon his successor. A contrary construction would be extremely injurious to the revenues of the United States, and could not have been intended by the legislature. The officer can only be liable to pay over the money he has collected, unless he is charged with a neglect of duty in not collecting.

In the present case, the breach assigned is for not paying, and no breach is assigned in not collecting, the duties. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant Sthreshley had paid over and accounted for all the duties he had collected.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 U.S. 169, 2 L. Ed. 584, 4 Cranch 169, 1807 U.S. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sthreshley-and-obannon-v-united-states-scotus-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack