Court Opinion

ID: 9416867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:57:11.401017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.434303
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, with whom concurred Justices CLIFFORD and DAVIS,
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion of the court in this. case. It seems to me that the charge of the judge to the jury was correct. The defendant was surety for the Detroit and Milwaukee Railroad Company on their rewarehousing bonds, given to secure duties on railroad-iron, for an amount admitted to be $76,000, besides interest. The property of the company was sold under mortgages, and a new company was formed by the purchasers, who purchased under a stipulation to recognize and pay all sums due the Federal government for duties upon railroad iron which, it was admitted, then amounted to $94,000. The purchasers, after, organization, gave a mortgage in November, 1860, to secure the payment, amongst other things, of the duties owing to the government of the United States, so that the new company assumed the payment of the duties in question. But their assumption was not communicated to the officers of the government, and was not known by them. In April, 1863, "Ward, the plaintiff in error, urged upon the new company to settle this claim, and also a claim which he had, by way of compensation for becoming surety. The board of directors verbally made him-a proposition., afterwards put in writing, to the effect that if he could procure the settlement and cancellation of the bonds for a sum not exceeding eighty *42thousand dollars currency (that sum to include his services and any claim he had), they would pay that sum — one-half on his making the arrangement, the other half within thirty days. Thereupon Ward had an interview with the district attorney, and after dilating upon the difficulties which would be met with in collecting the money, the defences which the company had against the claim, &c., said that he had been urging the directors to do something in relation to the bonds; that he thought they were going to have some money that could be applied to this purpose, and that they would do something in relation thereto. He then offered $35,000 in full for the bonds, saying that whether the company did or did not furnish any money, as he expected they would, he would pay that sum out of his owu funds, and that the company was apt to be behind'when money was to be paid out. He never .said one word about the offer of the company to pay the $80,000, and yet he \vas the surety, and was seeking to get up obligations that were his own- as well as the company's. Under these representations and this suppression of the facts, the district attorney was induced to recommend-the offer to the'acceptance of the department, ,and on the 24th of July, 1863, Ward paid the $35,000, got possession of the bonds, and the next day delivered them to the company and received from it the $80,000 which had been offered. -Afterwards, in February, 1864, when the distinct attorney had discovered the deception, and .derpauded the balance of $45',000, Ward offered him-a'check for $22,000, ón the plea that when the compromise was made he did not know that the cpmpany had provided for the government claim in their mortgage of November, 1860.
Upon this state of facts the government claimed that the whole $80,000 was received for their use.
A singular feature of the case is, that the offer of the company, made to Ward in April, was not put into writing until the 14th of May, 1863, and was then written out at the request of Ward, by Trowbridge, an officer of the railroad company, who was not present when the verbal proposition *43was made, but only heard of it from others. He wrote it out in a formal letter to Ward, dated May 14th, 1863, and this letter and the evidence of Trowbridge 'as to what he learned about it from others, is all the evidence we have of its precise terms.
The judge left it to the jury to say whether the letter contained the precise oral arrangement or not, with liberty to take into consideration- all the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff in error complains of this feature of the change. He insists that there was no evidence that the oral agreement was any thing different, from what the letter stated it to be.
It seems to me that the judge went quite as far as he was bound to go in favor of the plaintiff in error. The great controlling facts of the case were that the company agreed to pay this, $80,000 to get clear of the bonds, and of all claims in regard to them; that, Ward never informed .the government officials of this offer, but made representations which entirely ignored any such state of things — representations, to say the least, that were disingenuous, considering the relation in which he stood to the parties as surety on the bonds. Upon these representations he got a compromise, and afterwards had the offer of the railroad company put in writing in the shape in which it now stands in Trowbridge’s letter. He finally received the money and pocketed it all, except $35,000, which he paid to the government.
His conduct was surely an estoppel against himself, so far as the government was concerned. He was under an obligation to disclose the offer which had been made to him. He admits he received the $80,000 on account of the bonds. He cannot be permitted to say that he received part of the' money for himself. If that was the arrangement why did he not tell the district attorney so? As between him and the government, the latter had the prior right to be paid out of the fund. Ward was surety to the government.for the payment of its whole claim. He must be deemed in ’aw, under the circumstances, to have received the money for the use of the government. Hence the judge was light in de*44dining to say what the true construction of Trowbridge’s letter was.
I think the judgment should be affirmed.