National Republican., 1883-04-19
CLAIMANTS AND THEIR CREDITORS
A Decision That is Likely to Interest Both
ClRaaea.

Judge Lawrence has prepared an elaborate
opinion deciding question Of importance TO
claimants against tho United States and
their creditors.
In 1850 John ]. Pullam, of Tennessee, en-
ployed lawyer in Washington to prosecute a
claim against tho United States He did so,
and in June, 1882, the claim was allowed, and
the treasurer issued draft payable at the
treasury in Washington to the order of John
j. Pulliam, which was delivered to the at
tornoy. He claimed fee of $1,500, which
he assigned to the receiver of the German
American national bank in payment of a
debt, and delivered tho draft also to tho re-
ceiver.
Pulliam died in Tennessee, and an admin
istrator was there appointed on his estate.
An administrator was also appointed in tho
District of Columbia. The receiver applied
to the first comptroller to instruct the treas
urer to pay the draft on the Endorsement of
the district administrator, which was refused
because the supreme court in Vaughn VS..
Northup (15 Peters ~ had decided that in
such case payment must be made to tho Ten
nessee administrator.
The receiver then filed creditors bill in
equity in the district against tho district ad-
ministrator, the attorney, and by published
notice attempted to make the Tennessee ad-
ministrator party defendant. A decree was
made that the receiver should indorse and
collect the money ON the draft, retain the
81 500, and pay the residue in court for the
Tennessee administrator. The decree was
presented to the first comptroller with request
that he instruct the treasurer to make pay
ment.
Judge Lawrence has rendered decision,
the points of which are as follows; The legal
title to the draft vested in the Tennessee ad-
ministrator. This was decided by the su-
preme court in / Peters, 1. Payment cannot
be made to the receiver, unless the title OF the
Tennessee administrator has been divested
and vested in him. The legal title of the
Tennessee administrator has not been di-
vested, because he could not be sued in the
district even if he was found here, and hence
cannot be by notice published. This was
decided also by the supreme court in Peters
l. The decree here could not take away the
right of the Tennessee administrator nor
give it to the administrator here. The pos
session of the draft here could not change the,
result. 1t is not a subject matter or property
which can be affected by decree Of court
when the title to it is in tho Tennessee
administrator. This is decided in principle
in Murray VS.. Charleston (96 United States,
432) and Owen VS.. Miller 40 Ohio, II. Rep,
1867.
The validity of the decree is not called in
question SO far as it determines the rights
oi tne partles resiulng III the Disoricb OF 20
lumbia, but it must be construed as applying
to them only, and not affecting the right Of
the Tennessee administrator, who was not and
could not be party to it.
This conclusion Is required by public inter-
ests. Citizens in the states will not deal with
the government if creditors may come from
all parts of the United States and prevent
them from receiving payment of money due
them, so that they may pay all creditors alike,
and not permit preference to such as come to
Washington to bring suit
The treasurer will be informed that he can
only lawfully pay the draft to the Tennessee
administrator. ..