The United States v. Patterson

Supreme Court

The United States v. Patterson

11 U.S. 575, 3 L. Ed. 444, 7 Cranch 575, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 455

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 16, 1813

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 U.S. 575 (The United States v. Patterson) 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

The United States v. Patterson, 11 U.S. 575, 3 L. Ed. 444, 7 Cranch 575, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 455 (1813).

Pincite

Opinion

The case was submitted without argument, and

Duvall, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows :

*576 This case has been considered in connexion With that against January & Patterson.

A suit was instituted on the bond dated 23d March, against Arthur & Patterson; and pending the suit Arthur died. The Defendant pleaded performance, which the Plaintiffs replied, alleging as a breach of tlie condition, that the stipulations therein contained .had ,i0^ been performed, and that the Defendant' was in arrear to'the Plaintiffs,the sum of g 16,1S1 15 1-2. &c. on w],ich 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 aPPea*ec*t they are not open to examination.

The Plaintiffs also took an exception to the allowanee a credit to the Defendant. The supervisor had received the evidence of a number (if outstanding debts ^ue to Arthur, which he undertook to collect, and pro-raised to apply the proceeds to Arthur’s credit. Among was the bond, of Eeclor & Moore,. which was sued; at tlie trial of this suit, it appeared that the amount of that bond had actually coiné into the hands of the, agent of tlie person who had'been supervisor; hut that .office being extinct,”it was contended on the part of thfe United States, that the payment could not Be considered as a payment to government. The Court was of a different 0PÍn*on> ant* 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 er-in the-decision thus made. .The reception of the outstanding debts by1 the supervisor, for tlie purpose of having suits commenced for the recovery of than, was an accommodation t<> the Defendant. who could not be justly entitled to credit until the money wps in the hands qt some public officer authorised to "receive it.

Judgment reversed.

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

The case was submitted without argument, and

Duvall, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows :

*576 This case has been considered in connexion With that against January & Patterson.

A suit was instituted on the bond dated 23d March, against Arthur & Patterson; and pending the suit Arthur died. The Defendant pleaded performance, which the Plaintiffs replied, alleging as a breach of tlie condition, that the stipulations therein contained .had ,i0^ been performed, and that the Defendant' was in arrear to'the Plaintiffs,the sum of g 16,1S1 15 1-2. &c. on w],ich 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 aPPea*ec*t they are not open to examination.

The Plaintiffs also took an exception to the allowanee a credit to the Defendant. The supervisor had received the evidence of a number (if outstanding debts ^ue to Arthur, which he undertook to collect, and pro-raised to apply the proceeds to Arthur’s credit. Among was the bond, of Eeclor & Moore,. which was sued; at tlie trial of this suit, it appeared that the amount of that bond had actually coiné into the hands of the, agent of tlie person who had'been supervisor; hut that .office being extinct,”it was contended on the part of thfe United States, that the payment could not Be considered as a payment to government. The Court was of a different 0PÍn*on> ant* 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 er-in the-decision thus made. .The reception of the outstanding debts by1 the supervisor, for tlie purpose of having suits commenced for the recovery of than, was an accommodation t<> the Defendant. who could not be justly entitled to credit until the money wps in the hands qt some public officer authorised to "receive it.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 U.S. 575, 3 L. Ed. 444, 7 Cranch 575, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-united-states-v-patterson-scotus-1813.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack