Case ID: f-cas_13/html/0708-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 7,362.
    JOHNS et al. v. BRODHAG.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 235.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1804.
    Mr. Morsell, for plaintiffs,
    Mr. Key, for defendant,
    
      Sir. Mason and Mr.' Morsell, for plaintiffs,
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Crunch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT

(FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

were of opinion that the surety was entitled only to the priority of payment out of the effects of the insolvent; not to the trial at the first term: Because the clause giving such trial is subsequent to the clause which gives “the like advantage, priority,” &c.; because, by the words of the act, the priority of suit is only given when the duties are due to the United States; because the defendant cannot get a continuance of the cause unless the attorney of the United States be present; and because, in a suit by a surety, many more facts can be pleaded by the defendant than in a suit by the United States — such as the surety had not paid, or an offset, or that he was not insolvent, &c.

The motion was overruled, and the cause took its regular course through the dockets.