Brown's Adm'rs v. Hatton

• Decision Date: 30 June 1849
• Citation: 31 N.C. 319,9 Ired. 319
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JEREMIAH BROWN'S ADM'RS v. JAMES K. HATTON.

9 Ired. 319

31 N.C. 319

JEREMIAH BROWN'S ADM'RS

v.JAMES K. HATTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1849.

The Clerk of a District Court of the United States furnished certain transcripts of record to a collector of the customs, who applied for them officially, and, as he stated, by the direction of one of the auditors of the United States' Treasury. Held, that the Clerk could not hold the collector personally responsible for his fees, but must look to the United States' Government for what was due to him.

The construction of a written instrument belongs to the Court and not to the jury.

The cases of Hite v. Goodman, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 365, and Dameron v. Irwin, 8 Ired. 421, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Craven County, at Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.

The plaintiff's intestate, Jeremiah Brown, was Clerk of the United States District Court, for the District of Pamlico, and the defendant, Collector of the customs at Washington. On the 4th of November, 1845, the defendant addressed to the intestate a letter, of which the following is a copy: “Sir. I have to request that you will furnish this office, as early as you can find it practicable and convenient, a certified list of all custom house bonds from Washington, N. C., on which judgments in favor of the United States are had in the United States District Court for the District of Pamlico at Newbern. Also, all such as may have been in suit, if any such there be, with the date, on which they fell due, the names of the makers and sureties, the amount, for which said bonds were originally made, the amount of each payment and date thereof, and the amount still due on principal,” &c. This letter is signed, “James K. Hatton, Collector,” and addressed, “J. Brown, Esq., Clerk of the U. S. District Court, Newbern, N. Carolina.” On the 11th of November, 1845, the defendant again wrote to the intestate as follows: “Sir. On the 4th ultimo, I requested you to furnish to this office, a certified list of all bonds or judgments belonging to this office, stating at the same time, that the list furnished by you to T. H. Blount, Esq., late collector, was, according to his statement, incomplete, inasmuch as it did not contain all bonds and judgments in your office, belonging to this,” &c. This letter then states, “my object was to get a correct list, that I might comply with a request made to me, from the first Auditor of the United States Treasury, for the same. Your failing to comply with that simple request, has greatly disappointed me, and may subject me to some considerable loss.” It then makes the request for the list in the same terms as before. The third letter, written on the 20th of November, 1845, was addressed by the defendant to the intestate, repeating the request for the list, as stated in the proceeding ones. These two last are addressed as the first and signed as that was. These letters were produced in evidence by the plaintiff, who further proved, that the intestate, in consequence of the request contained in them, had made out and sent to the defendant copies of the records required. The plaintiff's declaration, which was in assumpsit, contained two counts, the first, upon an account for the copies of the records sent, &c.; the second, for work and labor done.

The defendant insisted, that the contract was made with him, as an officer and agent of the General Government, and he was not personally answerable.

The presiding Judge was of opinion, that from the testimony, produced by the plaintiff, it appeared, the credit, given by the plaintiff, was to the General Government, and that there was nothing to show that the defendant intended to become personally responsible.

In consequence of this opinion, the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit and appealed.

James W. Bryan, for the plaintiff , submitted the following argument:

There is error in the ruling below. The Act of Congress of 1799, Ch. 128, Sec. 21, Laws of the United States by Story, which prescribes the duties of collectors of customs, requires them to receive all monies paid for duties, and to take bonds for securing the payment thereof, and to keep fair and true accounts, and records of all their transactions, as officers of the customs, in such manner and form, as may from time to time be directed by the proper department, and shall, at all times, submit their books, papers and accounts, to the inspection of such persons as may be appointed for that purpose, and shall render an account once in every three months for settlement, and on failure so to do, in each and every case, the delinquent officer shall forfeit, and pay for the use of the United States, one thousand dollars, to be recovered with costs of suit. The collector is also required to take an oath, and enter into bonds for the faithful performance of the duties of his office. The defendant had no authority, either express or implied, from the General Government, to employ the plaintiff to furnish him with a certified list of all the bonds and judgments upon the same, belonging to the defendant's office, inasmuch as it was made the duty of the defendant by law, to have and keep a record of the same, in his own office; and it is manifest both from the Act of Congress, and the letters of the defendant to the plaintiff requesting this service, that the requisition made upon the defendant by the first Auditor of the Treasury of the United States, was personal to the defendant, and was to be complied with by him from the evidence which his own books ought, and were required by law, to furnish, and that his object in securing the services of the plaintiff was, to aid him personally, so that, to use his own language, he might “make a correct list,” and thereby be better enabled personally to comply with the requisition of the Auditor; he well knowing, that a failure on his part to keep a true record of the same, or to comply with the requisition of the Auditor, would subject him, as he states, to “a considerable loss,” of one thousand dollars, as specified in the Act of Congress, for such delinquency. The services, therefore, rendered by the intestate, were personal to the defendant, and the credit given by him, was to the defendant, and not to the General Government.

The description of office--“collector”--annexed to the name of the defendant, will be treated as a mere designation of the person, and not as a qualification of his personal responsibility. Thomas v. Bishop, 2 Strange R. 955. S. C. Cas. Temp., Hard. 1; and it is by no means true, that the acts of agents derive their validity from professing, on the face of them, to have been done in the exercise of their agency. In the more solemn exercise of derivative powers, as applied to the execution of instruments, known to the common law, rules of form have been prescribed. But in the diversified exercise of the duties of a general agent, the liability of the principal depends upon the facts, first, that the act was done in the exercise, and second, within the limits of the powers delegated. These facts are necessarily enquired into by a Court and jury; and this enquiry is not confined to written instruments alone, but to any act, with or without writing, within the scope of the power or confidence reposed in the...