TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The United States v. Patterson

The United States v. Patterson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 575 (1813)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 16, 1813
Judges
Duvall, Tom
Citations
11 U.S. 5753 L. Ed. 4447 Cranch 5751813 U.S. LEXIS 455
Headnotes
A debtor or YtateY^YhY puts evidence Mmseir U¡n-to the hands of a public of. Uuited^States to collect and’ nev^when're cei'v’ed)tathe credit of such debtor m account with the United States, to^uoii'credit until the mo-the hands’"?» public officer of the. United wr^ceive'it Its being in the agent o°a person who at the claims"*'611 were put into his hands tor “"r cerofthe rained ufreceive.debts nhaistates0" but whose oiffice became extinct before the money •was received to entitle such cred™ inac count witMhe United States therefor.
Summary
THIS was also a writ of error to the Circuit Court, for the district of Kentucky.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Duvall

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1813–1814: 11843–1844: 11845–1846: 11881–1882: 21903–1904: 118132026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris132 F. 945 (8th Cir. 1904)
  2. State v. Middleton's Sureties57 Tex. 185 (1882)
  3. Livingston v. Dorgenois11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 577 (1813)
  4. State v. Middleton1 Tex. L. R. 269 (1882)
  5. United States v. Gabriel F. Irving42 U.S. (1 How.) 250 (1843)
  6. Commonwealth v. Reitzel9 Watts & Serg. 109 (1845)

Most recent

  1. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris132 F. 945 (8th Cir. 1904)
  2. State v. Middleton1 Tex. L. R. 269 (1882)
  3. State v. Middleton's Sureties57 Tex. 185 (1882)
  4. Commonwealth v. Reitzel9 Watts & Serg. 109 (1845)
  5. United States v. Gabriel F. Irving42 U.S. (1 How.) 250 (1843)
  6. Livingston v. Dorgenois11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 577 (1813)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list