Case: ANDREW GLEASON v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Abbreviation: Gleason v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1888-04-23
Docket Number: 
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 501
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ANDREW GLEASON v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judges: 
Pages: 501–501

Head Matter:
ANDREW GLEASON v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(19 C. Cls. R., 430; 127 U. S. R., 133.)
On the claimants Appeal.
A contractor receives certificates of indebtedness which he hypothecates. He gives notice to the Board of Public Works, but neglects to notify the Board of Audit of his remaining interest in the certificates. He now brings his action for the difference.
The court below decides:
<1) Notice to the officers of the Board of Public Works was not in law notice to the Board of Audit.
(2) The District of Columbia is a unit in its corporate character, but its affairs are intrusted to different departments. To attach the responsibility of notice to the District, aparty must notify the department having jurisdiction of the subject-matter.-
(3) A party is chargeable with gross negligence who made an unrestricted assignment of certificates of indebtedness, supposed to be negotiable ; permitted the other party to deal with the holders as absolute owners, and allowed eight months to elapse after the discovery of a fraudulent transfer ere he attempted to protect himself by judi1 cial proceedings.
(4) Where one of two innocent parties must sustain a loss from the fraud of a third person, he who placed in that person’s hands the means of committing the fraud must sustain the loss.
(5) A party may be estopped by his own acts from making an innocent party pay an evidence of indebtedness a second time, though the instrument were non-negotiable. •
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Miller
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 23, 1888.