Court Opinion

ID: 8638263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:51.073037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:00.396919
License: Public Domain

HOPKINSON, District Judge,
rejected the evidence in regard to the discharge of Edward M’Gee, observing that the common law principle was clear, which precluded the introduction of evidence having no bearing upon the issue. This discharge could not serve the defendant under his plea of payment, even if it were proved, because the act of congress, by virtue of which the discharge was made, is a mere release of the person, and does not affect the debt. It was not so however in regard to the transactions of the treasury and navy departments, with the defendant; it was impossible to say that they did not contain proof, to a greater or less degree, of payments made by him on account of this liability. They ought therefore to be received in evidence, leaving for future consideration, the extent to which they operate.
The case went to the jury on this evidence, and HOPKINSON. District Judge, delivered the following charge:
The execution by the defendant of the bond on which this suit is brought is admitted; so of the condition and the breach. The ac-coubt of Thomas Burrowes. the principal in the bond, was not settled until the 29th November, 1S23. when it appeared there was due from him to the United States a balance of one thousand two hundred and ninety-six dollars and twelve cents. Burrowes died in the year 1821, and was known or supposed, some months after, to be a defaulter, although the amount was not ascertained; for on the 5th October, 1822, the fourth auditor wrote to the purser of the navy yard at Philadelphia, directing him to retain the pay of the defendant, Dr. Beattie, to meet the delinquency of Burrowes. On the 30th June, 1823. the secretary of the navy wrote to the defendant that his accounts were closed, and he was thereafter to receive his pay and rations as a surgeon's mate. On this settlement of the accounts of the defendant, there appeared to be due to him two hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents, which were retained to meet his responsibility for Burrowes, whose account was not yet settled; and, of course, the amount of that responsibility was not ascertained. It is now contended by the defendant, that these letters, from the fourth auditor and the secretary, sustain his plea of payment of this bond; and show that all claims upon him by the United States, not only on his own account but also as the surety of Burrowes, were- entirely closed. This is an affirmative allegation, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove it to your satisfaction. He alleges that the account settled' in June, 1823, was not merely of his own transactions with the government, but included the sum for which he was liable as the surety of Bur-rowes. If such be the fact, he could have shown it conclusively by producing the account. You would then have seen for yourselves of what items or particulars it is composed; you would have certainly known whether the sum of two hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents is simply the balance of the defendant’s own account with the government, or whether the account goes beyond this, and charges him with the balance of Burrowes, now demanded of him, or any part of it. The account is not produced, nor is there any rational presumption to be drawn from these letters that such was the case; on the contrary. I do not see how it could be so. The account of defendant was settled some time antecedent to the 30th June, 1823, for on that day the secretary informed him of it. Now it was not until the December following that Burrowes’ account w,as settled, and the amount of his debt to the United States known, to wit. one thousand two hundred and ninety-six dollars and twelve cents. It is evidently impossible that this amount could have formed a part of. or have been an item in, the account of Beattie, which was closed six months before; unless we are driven to the improbable presumption that the amount of Burrowes’ balance was anticipated and assumed in the settlement of Beattie’s account. If this was done the account itself would show it. The allegation, therefore, that the money due from Burrowes has been paid by the defendant in the settlement of his own account is *1057altogether unsupported.' The letter of the secretary could have referred only to the private account of Beattie himself. If, on the final adjustment of the account of Bur-rowes, it had appeared that he was not indebted to the government at all; or not to the amount of two hundred and- sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents, the sum retained from Beattie; would he not have had a just and legal claim for the return of this money? Could he have been told, “Your account is closed”? It is true the secretary informs him that he shall thereafter receive his pay, but does the relinquishment for the time of a harsh remedy, extinguish the claim? It was a liberal and equitable indulgence on the part of the secretary; it was perhaps but strictly right, that the earnings of the defendant should not be withheld from him. to meet an unascertained balance from a debtor for whom he was a surety, and where, whatever might have been the reasonable anticipation, it could not strictly be said that any forfeiture or breach of the bond had taken place. Whatever were the motives of the secretary in renewing the defendant’s pay, as an officer in the service of the government, it can never have the effect of discharging him from the obligations of his bond.
We find further, that in March, 1825, the auditor of the treasury wrote to the defendant, informing him that the balance due to him would be applied as an offset to the amount for which he was indebted to the government as the surety of Burrowes. To this he made no answer or complaint, asserting as he now does, that his responsibility was paid and discharged on his account settled in June, 1823. From this it would seem, that neither the accounting officers of the treasury, nor Dr. Beattie himself, considered that this settlement embraced any thing but his private account, and had no relation to any claim upon him arising from the surety-ship for Burrowes.
This is the whole testimony you have to act upon, for I consider the discharge of Edward M’Gee. the other surety, to have no relevancy to the case of the defendant. You will give him credit for the two hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty-seven cents.
The jury found a verdict for the United .States for thirteen hundred and sixty-eight dollars and eighty-seven cents.