Case: THOMAS J. CARVER v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Carver v. United States
Decision Date: 1884-05-05
Docket Number: 
Citation: 19 Ct. Cl. 714
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THOMAS J. CARVER v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
THOMAS J. CARVER v. THE UNITED STATES.
(16 C. Cls. R., 361; 111 U. S. R., 609.)
On the claimants Appeal.
A Treasury agent for the oolleotion of Confederate cotton iu the insurrec- , tionary district is arrested iu Alabama, in 1865, and tried by a military commission pursuant to orders of the President. He is found guilty of conspiring with others to defraud tbe government, and is sentenced to pay a fine of $90,000 and to be imprisoned one year and until the fine be paid. He pays the fine, and the remainder of the sentence is remitted. A portion of the money is paid to informers; the balance into the Treasury. After paying the fine, the claimant voluntarily renders an account of cotton collected by him, treating the fine as a payment on account, and claiming a balance remaining, which is paid to him.
The court below decides—
(1.) No action can be maintained against the government to recover money illegally exacted while it remains in the hands of military officers. Such a taking is tortious, and no liability on the part of the government arises from a tortious act.
(2 ) If an agent of the government who was sentenced by a military tribunal to pay a fine, and who having paid it was released from confinement, then consents that the money .pass into the Treasury to make good certain losses which the government suffered through his frauds, it is immaterial whether the fine was imposed legally or illegally. No contract can be implied to refund money thus paid into the Treasury.
(3.) When an agent attempts to defraud the government, he earns no commissions, although the accounting officers may treat a fine paid by ' him under sentence of a court as the proceeds of property collected by him, and upon which it was agreed he should receive a commission.
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, May 5, 1884.