The New York herald., 1871-02-08
GOVERNMENT AGENTS.
Liabilities Of Military Officers a. Agents Of the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Deosion.

Liabilities Of Military Officers 20 Agents Of the
Government Important Decision.
very Important decision has Just been rendered
at the General Term Of the Marine Court-Judges
Gross, Shea and Tracy on the bench, Judge Shea
delivering the opinion Of the Court-which will un-
doubtedly settle the question OF the liabilities or
officers OF the government, acting under special or
general military Instructions. as regards the trans
actions, contracts otherwise, OF individuals with
the government Tie Court decides, ana presents
authorities IN support that 'agents OF the govern
ment acting that capacity Tor the public. not
liable FOR the contracts made by them merely their
public capacity and within the scope OF their public
agency" The opinion Is also OF importance IN q
civil sense, relates to the law Of contracts where
an 'agent acts for the public ana treats In that ca
paciiy.n The case came up before General Term on
appeal the Court, by It's snbloned decision, revers
Ing that of the Court bclow-a fact which counsel
practising IN tho Marine Court will no doubt stake
q note orr
The case was that OF silas Crispin VS.. Elisha
CrOwell.
Judge Shea delivered the opinion OF the Court as
follows:-
The defendant is an oricer in the military service
OF the United States. and as such was on duty in
charge OF the Continental Ordnaucc, Stores at Brook.
lyn ut the time that the supposed cause or tis action
arose. III the month OF February, 1869, boxes of
defendant from New Orleans on board the piantins
brig, bound for Brooklyn, directed to Colonel 5.
The usual bills of ladlng wers delivered;
ana the t0xes and contents were 10 due course tor
wardel aud delivered TO the defendant ~ such OIL
Ger in charge at that place OF destination. The
freight money was $3,6i3. upon when the defend
ant, IN his official capacity. paid TO the tlaintiR
So, ib6. leaving balance or S4S7 which def infant
refused to pay, alleging ulat the arucles delivered
were less than the quantity cOnsiSnei; and Ee de-
Iendann therefore claimed TO deduct the balance
due the freight as indemnity 10 cover the loss on
the goods THIS action brought against the defend
ant TO recover from hi personally tnat balance and
Interest. The canSc was originally tried beiUre q
Judge OF this court without jury, who gave Judg.
ment In favor OF the PLAINTIFF Tor the amount or
this appeal Is taken. In coming TO that conclusion
the Judge who tried the cause must have found as
on board the brig at New Orleans were delivered by
the plalnun at The Continental stores, anu the only
question presented or presentable on this appeal II
that relating TO the individual Liability Of
Of Of the facts OF the case @ i'i1Sa It is Clear
| to my m nd tnat no legal liability was
assumed by the defendant individually, and that in
| such cases the law does not permit Individual iia.
Diity 10 be imputed OF inferred 1t Is not pretended
that the defendant undertook expressly to pay the
freight or any part OF IT, nor that ne otherwise
interested IN the ira saction than rs public
want III Inc careful performance Of his assigned and
usual duty. We are asked however, to infer from
the facts and circumstances Of the whole that
The piantif: and IL this view much stress was laid
on tue voluntary REIMBURSEMENT by the plan-
till of the carriers lien by the delivery OF
the boxes at the Continental Stores, and the de.
fendaDs receipt OF them; and also, on The TACT OF
the subsequent payment on account OF the freight.
Bur il is manifest these things were uone by the
defendant in the ordinary course OF his official EN-.
ployment, and no other than This reasonable infer
encc can be made. There surely Is nothing like an
express understanding IN all THIS on the part OF
defendant. Then again It was strongly pressed,
ana with great show Of equity and reason that tho
Inconvenience, uCldV q
ment In like cases from the government
s resulted s5a IN e a5s failure
Tins is the true point OF the Case Yet, even con-
ceding tho truth In ract OF thus pont the law s IN
10 permit court jury to infer an individual obi.
CATION on the part Of the d.iendant.. No stronger
plaiutin's can DC found than the earnest and
eloquent expressions OF Livingston, G. j.. IN Shef.
field W watson & e Caine,s Ca Hep, sss and Of Thomp.
opinion in Walker vs.. Swartwont lboth cases III u
Johnsons Rop., sS5 and page 444,. Their Views failed
II q public agent il to be held responsible upon
transactions relating TO the business OF his agency
ported by consideration Independents OF tue orjgt
nal contract made on behalf OF his principal. Tho
nsha e s States an ocar ag as s9
terent doctrine prevails III regard to person acting
as q iunctionary Of the government from one
be thus sta,ed:-That agents oi government,
p%o CAPACITY AMI asaY The s scope ie er paSo apss
Whom legal remedy lies to enforce % the contract.
And 1t mas been oio down that 'ln any case where
man acts as agent for the public, and treats In that
capacity, there Is no pretence Tor making him per.
sonay iiaoe" The reason OF tiis distinction as 10
the liability personal of public and Of private
agencies Is quite elemental ana IL fully treated OF III
Paley on Agency, 37s-s7s marginal paging; Story on
Agency. sec. so2; and I'm note to The late edition
ia rni W n cn ia I
am able discover since the supreme Court in this
State in Walker vs.. Swartwout az Johnson's Re-
the Of sheed i vs. watson ana GIN w. Brown
and would net concur with the views of Chief JUS
ss s pne sa S IS a s9 S Jass
Marshall in delivering the opinion OF the Supreme
Court Of The United States ,dss nat nnre %
public agent acts in the line Of his duty,
and by lelal authority, his contracts, made on ac-
sonal., During the course OF the argument 1t oc-
Cured to me tnaf an acton might perhaps be sus
In his hands at the time properly applicable 70 tie
plaintiffs claim The suggestion Is TO be found In
reported cases, of which FOX Us: Drake Is Cowcn's
an action for moneys had anu received TO the use Of
another. But examination oil the authorities gives
no encouragement to that noticn against public
agents. That relation Is an exception founded on
reasons OF public utility. Ana those reasons are
Wen stated ed IN Gdey W; Lord paiIners.on' on page
ton will not lie against puolic agent FOR anything
done by him In his public character or employment
tnoush alleged to lie, in The particular instance.
breach OF such employment, and constituting a
particular and personal liability; "such persons are
principles OF pubic policy an action WI not lie
against persons acting in public character and
situation" See also, Story on Agency, secs. 304 and
3t5, and tho notes TO those sections / am of oln-
ION that the judgment below mlsi be reversed, VITA
COSTS. Justices cross and Tracy concuriia1.
Edwards Picrrepont and Stanley for appellant:
Co.tcrei starr and Rusgles for respondent.