Case: HENRY P. SANDERS, ASSIGNEE, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Abbreviation: Sanders v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1885-05-18
Docket Number: No. 201
Citation: 20 Ct. Cl. 337
Volume: 20
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: HENRY P. SANDERS, ASSIGNEE, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Judges: 
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
HENRY P. SANDERS, ASSIGNEE, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
[No. 201.
Decided May 18, 1885.]
On the Proofs.
The claimant is assignee of a contractor who was overpaid by the defendant and to whom nothing is due.
I. Under the District Claims Act, an assignee of the contractor stands in his place, and may recover in this court what he might have recovered, if no assignment had been made, but nothing more.
21. Payment by the officers of the District at' a rate higher than that prescribed by a contract was illegal, and the excess will operate to extinguish a balance retained.
The Reporters’ statement of the ease:
The single fact upon which this case turned will be found stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. S. R. Bond for the claimant.
Mr. John C. Ray (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendant.

Opinion:
Davis, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant, as assignee of James A. Nelson, seeks to recover a sum of money retained by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and alleged to be due under the terms of a paving contract made by said Nelson with the Board of Public Works.
The claimant, as assignee of the contractor, stands in the place of his assignor, and may recover what the latter would have recovered but for the assignment, and no more. (Brown et al. v. The District of Columbia, 17 C. Cls. R., 402.) The contractor was allowed and paid, for paving, grading, and hauling, a sum considerably in excess of his contract-price and in excess of the amount claimed herein. As has already been decided in this court (Roche v. The District of Columbia, 18 C. Cls. R., 217), such an allowance was unwarranted and illegal. The petition is therefore dismissed.