Court Opinion

ID: 8639433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:43.92162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.006373
License: Public Domain

STORY, Circuit Justice.
This cause has been argued at considerable length, but it *906does not appear to me to Involve any real difficulty. Stripped of the disguise, which the bill attempts to throw over them, the naked facts appear to be these. Mr. Rous maniere was indebted to the United States on two custom house bonds, which were lodged at the Newport Bank in the usual course of business for collection. Before they became due, and with the avowed intention of paying them out of the proceeds, Mr. Rousmaniere procured two indorsed notes to be discounted at the bank, and paid the discount. The remaining proceeds were applied with other monies of Rousmaniere to the payment of the bonds, which were delivered up to him, and the amount was credited by the bank, first to the collector of Newport, and by him to the United States; and in a final settlement of accounts has been, duly credited to the collector at the treasury department. It turns out, that the notes so discounted were not what they purported to be, the indorsement of the signature of Mr. Mann being a forgery. The bank has brought this suit to have these bonds re-delivered to it, they now remaining in the hands of Rousmaniere’s administrators un-cancelled; and co procure a decree, that the bond debts have not been paid, and ought to be paid by the administrators. What authority the bank has in this case to make use of the name of the United States, I profess not to understand. The district attorney is no party to the bill, and I cannot perceive, that in any legal sense the United States are established to be trustees of the bank. The bonds never were assigned to the bank by the United States, nor is there any equitable ground, upon which the bank can claim any interest in them. If they have been regularly paid, they are extinguished, and their functions are gone; if not so paid, then they remain the exclusive property of the government; and the recovery, if at all, must be for their exclusive use.
The question, therefore, naturally arises, whether these bonds have been paid. And it is most manifest, that they have been duly paid, and credit accordingly given to the public treasury. But it is said, that these spurious notes were received in payment of the bonds by the bank, as agent of the United States, and payment in such notes is utterly void. But in point of fact, the notes were never so received, or paid. They were discounted at the bank in the usual course of business, and the discount was received by the bank; and the most that can be said is, that the proceeds were applied to the payment of the bonds. If the notes had been discounted at another bank, and the proceeds so applied, there would be no pretence to say, that the payment was not good and irrevocable. It cannot vary the case, that the bank here was entrusted with the collection of the bonds. When it applied its own money to the discount of Rousmaniere’s note, the money became Rousmaniere’s, .and, as such, was paid over to the United States; and it matters not how Rousmaniere obtained it. Neither is it true, that the notes were ever received in payment of the bonds for the United States. The United States never had any interest in them, or title to them. They were the exclusive property of the bank, and the discount was for its own profit. It is impossible, therefore, to sustain the position, on which the whole argument of the plaintiff rests. Besides, the bank had no authority from the United States to receive such notes in payment. It cannot be inferred from the nature of such an agency in general; and in respect to the government, it is perfectly clear, that no right exists in any public officer to delegate such an authority; and if it did, it is as clear, that none was given. So that, if the bank had undertaken to receive the notes m payment, it would have been at its own peril, and it would be responsible for the money due on the bonds.
In every view, this bill has not a shadow of right to sustain it; and I think the defendants are entitled to recover costs, to be taxed against the bank, which is the real plaintiff in the case. Bill dismissed.