Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1895-12-06
Citations: 31 Ct. Cl. 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 459–459

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. THE UNITED STATES.
(26 C. Cls. R., 468; 160 U. S. R., 598.)
On both parties’ Appeal.
On the outbreak of the civil war the President calls out troops and requests the governor of New York to buy arms and equipments. The State officers, to raise money for these purposes, issue interest-bearing bonds of the State. They also procure a loan from the canal fund of the State, it being stipulated by the commissioners that interest shall be paid. When the bonds mature the State pays them; when the loan from the canal fund becomes due the State pays it, with interest. The money so borrowed is expended in raising and equipping troops, which are accepted by the General Government. An act of indemnity is passed directing the accounting officers to refund “the cost, charges, and expenses properly incurred by said State." They pay the principal of both loans, but refuse to refund the interest. The Secretary of the Treasury refers the claim, under the Revised Statutes, § 1063.
The court below decides:
1. Where a claim was presented within six years to the proper Department and never abandoned and never formally rejected, the Secretary, after the lapse of twenty-six years, may refer it to this court, under the Revised Statutes, § 1063, notwithstanding the statute of limitations.
2. Where a State, being requested by the President to raise and equip troops for the service of the General Government, sells its interest-bearing bonds to raise money for that purpose, the interest paid by the State is a proper subject of indemnity under a statute which directs the accounting officers to refund “ the costs, charges, mid expenses properly incurred by said State for enrolling, subsisting, clothing, supplying, arming, equipping, paying, and transporting troops."
3. But where the State officers took money from an interest-bearing trust fund pledged to creditors of the State, with the stipulation that interest should be paid to the fund for the loan, which was done by the State, it was not a cost, charge, or expense incurred within the intent of the act.
The decision of the court below was affirmed on the same grounds, except as to the disallowance of the item of $39,867.18 entered paid by the State on money borrowed from the canal fund, which was reversed, the Supreme Court holding that the claim “is not one against the United States for interest as such, but is a claim for costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred and paid by the State in aid of the General Government, and is embraced by the act of Congress declaring that the States would be indemnified by the General Government for moneys so expended.”
December 6, 1895.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court