Stowe v. United States

Supreme Court

Stowe v. United States

86 U.S. 13, 22 L. Ed. 144, 19 Wall. 13, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1418

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 18, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 86 U.S. 13 (Stowe 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

Stowe v. United States, 86 U.S. 13, 22 L. Ed. 144, 19 Wall. 13, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1418 (1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think that the claim was rightly dismissed on the ground of the conclusiveness of the settlement with White. Stowe, by his own action, is estopped from disputing the validity of the settlement. If it be conceded that the power of attorney was not an effective instrument for any purpose, because not executed in conformity with law, the concession cannot operate to the advantage of Stowe, because he acted in such a way after the suit was brought as to preclude him from assuming the position he took in his amended petition. This action has induced the accounting officers of the government to treat White as the only party in interest, and if loss is suffered on this account, it should not be borne by the defendants. Stowe, in suffering the suit to proceed, and co-operating with White’s attorney in its prosecution, cannot be heard to say that the statements contained in the petition are not true. It would be wrong to allow him to stand by and see the suit settled on the basis of the truth of those statements, and then to turn round and take a new position because the partial interest which he held in the claim was left unprotected by the settlement. If there be cause of complaint against any one for the failure to protect this interest, it is not against the defendants whose officers conducted and completed the negotiation, on the faith that *17 White, as declared in the petition, was the real owner of the claim, and that the suit was prosecuted for his benefit. In assisting to carry on this suit, Stowe adopted the proceeding-on which it was based, and in effect notified the defendants that they could safely settle the cause of action with the attorney of record. Besides, in taking charge of it after the settlement and asking leave to amend the petition, he recognized the authority of the counsel who instituted it; and it is very clear, that the amendment which he was permitted to file, could not affect rights acquired while the suit as originally framed was pending.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice DAVIS

delivered the opinion of the court.

We think that the claim was rightly dismissed on the ground of the conclusiveness of the settlement with White. Stowe, by his own action, is estopped from disputing the validity of the settlement. If it be conceded that the power of attorney was not an effective instrument for any purpose, because not executed in conformity with law, the concession cannot operate to the advantage of Stowe, because he acted in such a way after the suit was brought as to preclude him from assuming the position he took in his amended petition. This action has induced the accounting officers of the government to treat White as the only party in interest, and if loss is suffered on this account, it should not be borne by the defendants. Stowe, in suffering the suit to proceed, and co-operating with White’s attorney in its prosecution, cannot be heard to say that the statements contained in the petition are not true. It would be wrong to allow him to stand by and see the suit settled on the basis of the truth of those statements, and then to turn round and take a new position because the partial interest which he held in the claim was left unprotected by the settlement. If there be cause of complaint against any one for the failure to protect this interest, it is not against the defendants whose officers conducted and completed the negotiation, on the faith that *17 White, as declared in the petition, was the real owner of the claim, and that the suit was prosecuted for his benefit. In assisting to carry on this suit, Stowe adopted the proceeding-on which it was based, and in effect notified the defendants that they could safely settle the cause of action with the attorney of record. Besides, in taking charge of it after the settlement and asking leave to amend the petition, he recognized the authority of the counsel who instituted it; and it is very clear, that the amendment which he was permitted to file, could not affect rights acquired while the suit as originally framed was pending.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 U.S. 13, 22 L. Ed. 144, 19 Wall. 13, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stowe-v-united-states-scotus-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack