Butler v. United States

Decision Date01 October 1874
Citation21 Wall. 272,88 U.S. 272,22 L.Ed. 614
PartiesBUTLER v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Debt on a joint and several internal-revenue bond, executed by Emory, as principal, and by Butler, Sawyer, and Choppin as sureties, the bond on oyer appearing to be in the sum of $15,000.

Butler pleaded that at the time he signed and affixed his seal to the bond, it was a mere printed form, with blank spaces for the names, dates, and amounts to be inserted therein; that the blanks were not filled, and there was no signature thereto, except Emory's; that Emory promised, if Butler would sign the bond, he, Emory, would fill up the blanks with the sum of $4000, and would procure two additional sureties in the District of Columbia, each of whom was to be worth $5000; and that he, Butler, signed the bond and delivered it to Emory with the understanding and agreement that the bond was otherwise not to be binding on him, Butler, nor delivered to the United States, or to any of its agents or officers, but was to be returned to him; that Emory did not so fill up the bond, but on the contrary, falsely and fraudulently filled it up with the sum of $15,000, and with the names of Sawyer and Choppin, neither of whom resided in the District of Columbia, and neither of whom was worth $5000, but, on the contrary, both of whom were wholly insolvent and worthless; that Emory accordingly obtained the signature of him, Butler, by false and fraudulent representations; that the bond was therefore not the bond of him, Butler, when made, and that he had never afterward ratified or acknowledged its validity.

The Circuit Court, relying on Dair v. United States,* ruled that this was no defence to the action. The defendant excepted and brought this writ of error.

In the case of Dair v. United States, just mentioned, two persons, as sureties, signed a bond to the government at the instance of a third person, who had signed it as principal; the two signing as sureties doing so upon the condition that the instrument was not to be delivered to the government until it should have been executed by a third person named, as surety; and then placing it in the hands of the person who had signed it as principal, who without the performance of the condition and without the consent of the two persons signing as sureties, delivered the bond to the government; the bond being regular on its face, and the government having had no notice of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Barker v. St. Louis County, 34332.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 21 april 1937
    ...v. Warner, 25 Mo. 277; Provolt v. Railroad Co., 57 Mo. 256; Zimmerman v. Railroad Co., 144 Fed. 622; Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 204, 22 L. Ed. 614; 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 538; Hilt v. Weber, 252 Mich. 198, 223 N.W. 159, 71 A.L.R. 1244; Sec. 21, Art, II, Mo. Const. Requirement that property ow......
  • State v. McGonigle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 19 mei 1890
    ...Middleton v. State, 22 N.E. 123; Dair v. United States, 16 Wall. 1; Bigelow on Estoppel [3 Ed.] 454, and cases there cited; Butler v. United States, 21 Wall. 272. O. Jones, also, for appellant. (1) The answers do not state facts to constitute a defense. They do not state the court had notic......
  • Barker v. St. Louis County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 21 april 1937
    ......v. Lubke, 15 Mo.App. 152; Kennedy. v. Indianapolis, 103 U.S. 599, 26 L.Ed. 550; United. States v. Railroad Co., 176 F. 969; Poulan v. Railroad Co., 123 Ga. 605, 51 S.E. 657; ......
  • Nowell v. Mayor And Council Of Monroe, 9318.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 14 september 1933
    ...417, 148 P. 691; Thompson v. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co., 222 Ky. 492, 1 S.W.(2d) 770; Butler v. United States, 88 U. S. (21 Wall.) 272, 22 L. Ed. 614; 50 C. J. 42), there is still no sufficient basis for an estoppel against the company. If such an agency did in law arise, it is nevertheless......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT