In the year 1857 Samuel Forrest recovered in the Supreme Court of New Jersey a judgment against Rodman M. In order that the precise questions to be determined upon this writ of error may be clearly apprehended we must now refer to certain matters occurring in the courts of New Jersey both prior to and shortly after the passage of the above act of February 23, 1891. Under the authority conferred by that act the Secretary of the Treasury, in August, 1892, adjusted the accounts of Price and in that adjustment he was credited with the sum advanced to Van Nostrand, leaving due to him from the Government the sum of $76,204.08, which of course included the above sum of $75,000. Price, or his heirs, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, any sum that may be found due him upon such adjustment." Van Nostrand, acting purser, January 14, 1850, and pay to said Rodman M. Price, late purser in the United States Navy and acting navy agent at San Francisco, California, crediting him with the sum paid over to and receipted for by his successor, A.M. Price," the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States was "authorized and directed to adjust upon principles of equity and justice the accounts of Rodman M. 1371, entitled "An act for the relief of Rodman M. 357.įinally, by an act approved February 23, 1891, c. In an elaborate opinion, given March 12, 1854, Attorney General Cushing held that, while the appointment of Van Nostrand as acting purser was lawful and valid under the circumstances, the Government could not be charged with the private funds paid to him by Price, although the latter believed *413 at the time that his advance of money to the former was an accommodation to the Government in the then unsettled condition of California. Price insisted that the United States should reimburse him for the amount so advanced by him, but the officers of the Government denied its liability to him on that account. Van Nostrand never returned the $75,000 or any part of it to Price, nor did he account for it to the Government. Van Nostrand, acting purser." This money was so advanced without the approval and signature of Commodore Jones.
Navy, seventy-five thousand dollars, for which I hold myself responsible to the United States Treasury Department, $75,000. Subsequently on the 14th day of January, 1850, and out of his private funds alone, Price advanced to Van Nostrand seventy-five thousand dollars, taking a receipt therefor as follows: "San Francisco, January 14, 1850. Thereupon Price turned over to Van Nostrand as acting purser of the Navy at San Francisco, forty-five thousand dollars, that being all the public money remaining in his hands. Van Nostrand was his successor, in California, as acting purser in the Navy.Ībout December 31, 1849, Commodore Jones of the Navy, commanding the United States squadron at San Francisco, directed Van Nostrand to receive from Price all books, papers, office furniture and funds on hand belonging to the purser's department at that city. He acted in that capacity until about December, 1849, or January, 1850, when he was detached from such service and ordered to transfer all public money and property remaining in his hands to his successor, or to such other disbursing officer of the Navy as might be designated by the commanding officer at the naval station at California, and immediately after such transfer to report at the city of Washington for the purpose of settling his accounts.Ī.M. In the year 1848 the decedent was assigned to duty on the Pacific Coast in California as purser and fiscal agent of the *412 United States for the Department of the Navy. The facts out of which arise the questions of law discussed by counsel are as follows:
Price, are entitled to receive from the United States the amount standing to the credit of the deceased on the books of the Treasury, and which represents the balance of a sum found in his lifetime under the authority of a special act of Congress to be due him upon an adjustment of his accounts as a purser in the Navy. The ultimate question in this case is whether the plaintiffs in error, as heirs of Rodman M. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. Decided March 6, 1899.ĮRROR TO THE COURT OF ERRORS AND APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.
0 kommentar(er)
