The United States v. Patterson

11 U.S. 575, 3 L. Ed. 444, 7 Cranch 575, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 455
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 16, 1813·Published·Cited by 6 cases

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

11 U.S. 575 (The United States v. Patterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris
132 F. 945 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
State v. Middleton
1 Tex. L. R. 269 (Texas Supreme Court, 1882)
State v. Middleton's Sureties
57 Tex. 185 (Texas Supreme Court, 1882)
Commonwealth v. Reitzel
9 Watts & Serg. 109 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1845)
United States v. Gabriel F. Irving
42 U.S. 250 (Supreme Court, 1843)
Livingston v. Dorgenois
11 U.S. 577 (Supreme Court, 1813)