Case ID: us-ct-cl_13/html/0523-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Swayne", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE BOSTON BANK CASES.
    (10 C. Cls. R., 519; 96 U. S. R., 30.)
    The State National Bank of Boston, appellee, v. The United States, appellants. The Merchants’ Bank of Boston, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    
      The easMer of the sub-treasury in Boston embezzles money and lends it to Mellen, Ward ‡ Co. By a fraudulent scheme, the State Bank is induced to talce up gold certificates belonging to M., W. §• Co., lying as collaterals in the Merchants’ Bank, and to present them for redemption at the sub-treasury. The cashier there treats them as received fromM., W. ‡ Co., and applies them upon his oten defalcation. Both banks bring their actions to recova• the amount of the certificates. The cases are presented at the same time and by the same counsel, the real question being upon the right of the one or the other to recova• from the Government.
    
    The court "below holds: (1) That when money is delivered to a public officer for a lawful purpose and he applies it to another, an action will lie against the Government as for money had and received; (2) That though an action will not lie against the Government for the wrongful acts of its officers, neither will an action be defeated by reason of their wrongful acts to which the other party is a stranger; (3) That where certificates payable in gold were fraudulently misapplied and the action is in the nature of a common-law action in assumpsit to recover the amount thereof, the judgment should be rendered payable in gold. Judgment for the State Bank. The defendants ax>peal.
    The judgmeiáf'of the court below is affirmed on substantially the same grounds. And the Supreme Court holds: (1) That, where sovereignty is in nowise involved, the rules of law applicable to individuals are applicable to the Government; (2) That where a public agent’s acts are vitiated by fraud, they confer no rights upon his principal, the Government.
   Mr. Justice Swayne

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, January 21, 1878.