Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
THE UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON, 1813 — 11 U.S. 575 · caselaw · US
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
THE UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON
11 U.S. 5757 Cranch 575·Supreme Court of the United States·1813
Absent....Tom), J.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
THE UNITED STATES v. PATTERSON.
Absent....Tom), J.
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.
THIS was also a writ of error to the Circuit Court, for the district of Kentucky.
[MAJORITY — Duvall, J.]
The case was submitted without argument, and
Duvall, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows :
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.