TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Teehan

United States v. James TEEHAN and Jane Teehan

United States v. Teehan, 140 F. Supp. 465 (E.D.N.Y. 1956)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 27, 1956
Docket
No. Civ. No. 16251
Judges
Bhuchhausen
Citations
140 F. Supp. 4651956 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3487

Opinion of the Court — Bhuchhausen

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

BHUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.

The plaintiff in this action seeks to recoup overpayments of family allowance benefits.

There is no doubt that the defendant, Jane Teehan, received from the plaintiff allotment checks totalling $320 to which she was not entitled from the period June, 1942 through September 30, 1943.

The Government exhibits show that allotments were provided for in the payroll records of defendant, James Teehan, when he was a private in the United States Army, and that they were not deducted from his pay, and that they were paid to him in cash. His signature is affixed to the payroll records.

Other exhibits establish that the checks totalling the amount sued for were sent to Jane Teehan, his wife, during the said period.

Mrs. Teehan neither affirmed nor denied receipt of the checks. During her husband’s period of service she also received family allowance payments of $50, and then the allotments were increased and her memory is vague as to the amounts of the checks received.

A letter written by her, however, within one month after the alleged overpayment ceased, corresponds to the aforesaid exhibits by the Government, showing payment of the checks, and constitutes an admission of receipt thereof, at least as to the more recent overpayments.

While the original cancelled checks which should have contained Mrs. Teehan’s indorsement, if the Government’s allegations are true, were destroyed, after eight years, pursuant to statute, certified memoranda concerning their destruction and sufficiently identifying them were admitted in evidence as entries made in the regular course of business under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732 , as well as proof of the existence of said can- *466 celled checks under the rules of evidence since their destruction was not willful. See Steele v. Lord, 70 N.Y. 280 .

Judgment is directed for the amount demanded in the complaint, but without interest or costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1958: 11959: 11960: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Dorgan157 F. Supp. 864 (D. Me. 1958)
  2. United States v. Smith182 F. Supp. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)
  3. United States v. Wooldridge10 C.M.A. 510 (1959)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Smith182 F. Supp. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)
  2. United States v. Wooldridge10 C.M.A. 510 (1959)
  3. United States v. Dorgan157 F. Supp. 864 (D. Me. 1958)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Steele v. Lord, 70 N.Y. 280 (1877) 9

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