Case: CHARLES BORCHELING, RECEIVER, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Borcheling v. United States
Decision Date: 1902-04-14
Docket Number: 
Citation: 37 Ct. Cl. 553
Volume: 37
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CHARLES BORCHELING, RECEIVER, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Mr. Justice White dissented.
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
CHARLES BORCHELING, RECEIVER, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[35 C. Cls. R., 311; 185 U. S. R., 223.]
On the defendants Appeal.
In 1857 Forrest recovers judgment against Price in New Jersey. Forrest dies and his administratrix revives the judgment and in her bill prays discovery, injunction, and the appointment of a receiver. In 1891 Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to settle and adjust the accounts of Price, late purser, and pay him the balance found due. The amount'found due is $76,204.08. In the meantime the Chancery Court issues an order restraining him from collecting the money, notwithstanding which he receives from the Treasury $45,204.08. In 1892 the claimant is appointed by the Chancery Coui't receiver of the property and things in action belonging to or held in trust for Price, with authority to sue. A certified copy of the order is sent to the Secretary of the Treasury. In 1893 the Court enjoins Price from seeking to obtain any part of the balance of the $31,000 remaining to his credit. A certified copy of this order is sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the receiver makes formal demand on the Secretary for the payment of the money to him. Thereafter the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia enjoins Price from receiving, collecting, 01 indorsing to his own use any warrants or drafts from the Treasurer. December 22, 1893, the court, with the assent of Price, exonerates 57,900 from the effect of the restraining decree. The Comptroller certifies a balance in Price’s favor of 57,900, leaving a balance to his credit of 523,100. Thereafter the Comptroller orders the balance remainhig to be paid to the receiver, which is done. The receiver now sues to recover the §7,900 paip, to Price.
The court below decides:
1. The authority of a receiver appointed under the laws of a State is limited by the territorial boundaries of the State. The laws of the State can not be extended by any decree of its court to a foreign jurisdiction.
2. Personal property of a debtor passes to a receiver by operation of law, but he takes title to property outside the State where he is appointed, subject to every equity of foreign creditors.
■3. The rule limiting the authority of receivers of State courts does not prevent one State or sovereignty from recognizing the laws of another by comity.
4. Where the Treasury pays money to a receiver, his receipt is as complete a defense as that of the creditor. Money paid to a receiver discharges the liability of the Dnited States.
■5. The Government has no special place of domicile, and debts due by it are not local assets.
■6. Debt is an asset which passes to a receiver, and payment by the Secretary of the Treasury of money of the debtor in his hands to creditors is in derogation of settled law.
7. The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims extends throughout the United States. In all cases relating to contracts, title to property, and the proper parties to prosecute, the court is, to all intents and purposes, sitting where the cause of action arose.
■8. The accounting officers of the Treasury have effective means under Revised Statutes, section 1063, to protect the Government. In the case of conflicting rights, the court must assume jurisdiction and render judgment for one claimant against the other.
9. It is not inconsistent with Revised Statutes, section 3477, for a court for the protection of a creditor to forbid a claimant to collect his demand except through a receiver.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Shiras
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 14, 1902.
Mr. Justice White dissented.
Mr. J ustice Harlan took no part in the decision of this case.