Case Name: THE GERMAN BANK OF MEMPHIS and CHEMICAL BANK OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1893-04-10
Citations: 28 Ct. Cl. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE GERMAN BANK OF MEMPHIS and CHEMICAL BANK OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
THE GERMAN BANK OF MEMPHIS and CHEMICAL BANK OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES.
(26 C. Cls. R., 198; 148 U. S. R., 573.)
On the claimant’s Appeal.
United States bonds belonging to a trust estate are in terms payable to Cochran, executor. He dies, and an administrator with the will annexed is appointed, who files copies of his letters at the Treasury and delivers the bonds to the German Bank to sell. It sends them to the Chemical, which makes inquiries at the Treasury. The Register replies “That there is on file in this office satisfactory power in favor of your hank to transfer the bonds.” They are transferred and sold and the proceeds paid to the administrator, who embezzles the money. The cestui que trust brings suit against him and the banks for .misappropriation of the trust estate and recovers against all. The banks pay the judgment, and claim to be subro-gated thereby in a right of action against the Government.
Tbe court below decides:
1. Where the Register of the Treasury is not informed that United States bonds offered for transfer were part of a trust estate, and the will which created the trust would not have disclosed the fact, he may infer that the bonds were part of'the general assets of the testator, subject to transfer and sale by his administrator.
2. Wrongdoers can not be subrogated in the rights of those whose interests have been impaired by their acts.
3. The Government is not responsible for an erroneous opinion concerning the right of an administrator to transfer a United States bond given by the Register of the Treasury, though an innocent party made the transfer on the faith of the opinion.
4. To give advice and assistance in the transfer of fronds is an excess of authority fry a public officer, and to transfer them without authority is a wrongful act, and for neither is the Government responsible.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brown
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, April 10, 1893.