Case ID: us-ct-cl_6/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Torino, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CARTER’S CASE. Ezra Carter v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      A collector of customs collects and pays over to tlie Treasury Department certain sums of money in 1855 and 185G. Die also collects and pays over other sums March 31, 1857. Of these sums so paid, he claims a part as his lawful fees. On the 19th of February, 1858, he is notified by the Treasury that his accounts are finally adjusted and closed. He brings his action to recover his fees April 20, 1869.
    I. The legal fees of a collector of customs are due and recoverable at law so soon as bis quarterly accounts are rendered, and collections paid over to the Treasury. The statute of limitations runs from that time.
    II. The statute of limitations proscribed by the Act reconstituting the Court of Claims (12 Stat. L., p. 765) bars a suit upon a claim wliicb accrued more than sis years before tbe imssageof the.act, in three years from the time the act took effect, and all other suits in six years from the time the claim accrued.
    
      Mr. T. J. D. Fuller for the claimant.
    Claimant was collector of the United States port of Falmouth and Portland from May, 1853, to-April 1,1857. From August, 1855, to March 31,1857, he collected, and, by the direction of the Commissioner of Customs, credited to. the United States certain moneys received by him as collector, for storage of imported dutiable merchandise in private bonded warehouses, imported and stored therein prior to the payment of the legal duties thereon, of which he claimed to retain, as part of his official compensation, the sum of $2,000 per year, if so much should he realized and collected by him In any one year, in addition to the sum of $3,000 per year, which was the sum of his salary, as admitted by the Treasury Department; that this receipt of moneys for storage arose from the completion of the Atlantic and St. Lawrence Eailroad, and thereby opening new channels of intercommunication between Great Britain and her colonial dependencies through the port of Portland; that the Treasury Department denied his right to retain the same as part of his compensation, and threatened him with the exercise of the stringent provisions of the so-called sub-treasury act, if he did not pa.y over said money claimed by him as part of his just and legal compensation.
    The Court of Claims has jurisdiction of this case under the general law conferring jurisdiction upon it, by the words u founded upon a lato of Congress,” to wit, the statute of March 3, 184Í, §5.
    The account of the collector, Carter, has never been finally settled at the Treasury Department, and it is still open. The government claims a balance due from Carter on his emolument account of $383 12$ while Carter claims a balance due him, after deducting the $383 12, of the sum of $2,356 39 on his emolument account. The rests which are made quarterly at the Treasury, of the collector’s account, are not final settlements in any just sense of the term; and the practice is, and ever has been, to charge and surcharge upon suspensions or disallowances in a running account.
    The statute of limitations does not apply, therefore, in this case. The item of credits claimed by the claimant were duly made, and, by error of law, were rejected by the accounting officers. It was manifestly their duty to conform their action to the settled opinion of the Supreme Court, as laid down in 5 Wallace’s Beports, United States v. McDonald.
    
    This account was forwarded in June, 1861. It does not seem to have been acted upon until Ma.y 4, 1868, as seen in reply to the letter of T. J. D. Fuller, of March 18,1867. The war of the rebellion, commencing in 1861, seems to have diverted the attention of the Commissioner of Customs from the consideration of the balances standing unadjusted of old accounts.
    The lawfulness of the claim need not be argued. The amount of it is admitted by the government, for .the claim to retain it is based upon the ground that it was once collected and paid to the government.
    
      
      Mr. Alexander Johnston (with, whom was tbe Assistant Attorney General) for the defendants.
    The claim is barred by'the Act March 3, 1SG3, § 10, (12 Stat. L., p.'76o.) This act is not like the statute of limitations. There is no exception in it as to “ merchants’ accounts.” There could not be. The act under which this claim is made required Carter to render his accounts quarter-yearly. This provision imports a quarter-yearly settlement, for his accounts were rendered for settlement. The Act May 7, 1822, § 12, (3 Stat. L., p. 694,) provides that collectors’ accounts shall be settled at the Treasury like other public accounts; which simply means that they shall be settled when presented.
    The claim set up in the petition in this case is not for money that the government was required to pay. If there is any claim at all, it is for money erroneously or inadvertently paid into the Treasury — money which the claimant was entitled to retain. So soon as the claimant paid the money into the Treasury, the claim (if he has any) accrued to him to the extent of the money so paid in. The payment did not and could not lawfully enter into the accounts of the collector.
    This, therefore, is not a suit upon an account, but a suit upon certain items of an account. The account between the claimant and the United States is not in the case. The claimant alleges that.certain items in the account for money paid by him into the Treasury are erroneous, in this: that the defendants were not legally entitled to the money so paid in. This is all there is in his case.
    If the exception in the statute of limitations could apply to a case where the Act March 3, 1863, was pleaded, this claimant could not avail himself of it, because his action is not on an account. (Spring and others v. The Executors of Gray, 6 Peters, p. 151.) That the exception applies only to accounts between merchant and merchant tvhich concern the trade of merchandise, see same case; also, Planters’ Panic v. Farmers’ Panic, 10 Gill & Johnson, p. 422.
    If the exception in the statute of limitations in favor of merchants’ accounts did apply to the account between the government and one of its officers, still the claim is barred. The last item of credit (which is proved by an allegation in the amended petition, and a statement in the brief for the claimant) was made under tbe Act April 6,1870. (Private Laws, 2d session 41st Congress, p. 31.) This act only authorizes the allowance of a credit in respect to vouchers that had been lost by fire. It was not an original transaction; it did not in fact change the status of the parties. Carter had before paid the money, and the only question was as to the entry of the proper credit.
    As to whether the accounts of Carter are finally closed at the Treasury, there are contradictory statements in the record. Commissioner Sargent and the claimant assert that there is yet a balance due from Carter to the United States, while a letter of February 19,1858, from Commissioner Ingham, states that the accounts had been closed on the books of the Treasury.
    The statements of the Commissioner, and of the claimant in his amended petition, are no doubt true. They are corroborated by the act of Congress for the relief of Carter, cited above.
    The amount of Carter’s indebtedness, as reported by the Commissioner, and admitted' by the claimant, was $1,259 02. This was before the act referred to. The act authorized a credit not to exceed $875 90, and it appears by the claimant’s amended petition that the amount allowed was $858 90. This leaves a balance of $399 12 due to the United States, for which sum judgment is asked in this case.
   Torino, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this action, brought April 20, 1869, the petitioner claims the sum of $2,739 51. And the court finds the facts to be—

1. That the petitioner was collector of customs for Falmouth and Portland from May, 1853, to May, 1857.

2. During the year 1855 he collected the sum of $1,049 51, and in the year 1856 he collected the sum of $1,690, for the care and custody in bonded warehouses of imported goods.

3. That in his quarterly accounts rendered to the Treasury Department, he credited those sums to the United States, as follows: The sum of $1,049 51 as received “ for storage of merchandise,” and $1,690 as received “for services of inspectors of customs having charge of merchandise in bonded warehouses;” and he paid the sums so credited, ns they were accounted for.

4. That on the 9th of July, 1S57, and 11th of November, 1857, he was notified by the department that his accounts as collector were audited and a balance found against him, and he was required to make payment of it, and informed that bis claims for additional compensation, if transmitted, would be adjusted, and tbe amount found due liim remitted to liim.

5. Tbat on tbe 19tb of February, 1858, be was.notified that bis accounts bad been further adjusted and closed.

0. Tbat on June 15,1861, tbe petitioner filed with tbe Department tbe account in which be claimed tbe sums credited and paid to tbe government as aforesaid as belonging to him and part of bis compensation, and paid and credited to tbe government by mistake, and bis claim was not allowed.

If it be admitted tbat tbe petitioner was entitled to retain tbe sums be paid over, then tbe sums accounted for and iiaid up to December 31, 1856, were recoverable by him then, if at all, and therefore accrued to him six years before March 3,1863, and bis action for these was by tbe statute limited to three years from tbat date, and was consequently barred March 3,1866, and this action was not brought till April, 1869.

And the sums accounted for and paid March 31, 1857, were due and recoverable then, if at all, and bis action for these was barred in six years therefrom, i. e., on March 31, 1863.

And on the facts stated the court find tbat tbe claim of tbe petitioner is barred by tbe limitations prescribed by statute of March, 1863; and it is ordered tbat said petition be dismissed.