Robert Milnor, John Thompson, David Petrekin Levi Woodbury v. George Metz
| Decision Date | 01 January 1842 |
| Citation | 41 U.S. 221,10 L.Ed. 943,16 Pet. 221 |
| Parties | ROBERT MILNOR, JOHN THOMPSON, DAVID PETREKIN and LEVI WOODBURY, Secretary of the Treasury, Complainants and Appellants, v. GEORGE W. METZ, Appellees |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia and county of Washington. The appellants, Milnor and Thompson, were, during the years 1836 and 1837, United States gaugers for the port of Philadelphia, and as such received the full compensation allowed by law for that period. The duties having been rendered unusually laborious during the year, by the operation of the act of July 4th, 1836, reducing the duties on wines, under which they were required to regauge them; they appealed to congress for extra compensation, to the amount of their full ordinary fees for these additional services. Their memorial to congress was presented in January 1838; and in May 1840, an act was passed for their relief, by which the sum of '$2757.23, being the amount of fees due to them for extra services as gaugers in the port of Philadelphia, after the passage of the act of 4th July 1836, reducing the duty on wines.' George W. Metz made no claim before congress. as the assignee of Robert Milnor.
In December 1838, the appellant, Robert Milnor, applied, at Philadelphia, for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania; and he was discharged in January 1839, having executed the usual assignment for the benefit of his creditors. The appellee, George W. Metz, was duly qualified, and became the sole assignee. After the act of 1840 had passed, he applied at the treasury department, claiming the amount of the sum allowed by the same to Robert Milnor, being one-half of the whole sum allowed; the other portion belonging to John Thompson. This application was rejected; and this suit was instituted against the appellants. The court made a decree in favor of the appellee; and the appellant, Robert Milnor, prosecuted this appeal.
The case was argued by Clement Coxe, for the appellant; and by Bradley, for the appellee.
Coxe contended:—1. That there was no purpose of Milnor to make the dedication claimed; and that his purpose, either way, is immaterial, as the insolvent law determines, without reference to it, what shall, and what shall not, be included in the assignment. 2. That the insolvent, at the time of his assignment, had no such interest in the claim upon congress as could pass by that instrument. 3. That congress had the right to model their relief at pleasure, and having granted it to Milnor, and not to his assignee, the latter is without relief by the present suit.
Although, in the schedule of property annexed to the petition of Robert Milnor, for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, a claim on congress is stated; this does not preclude the denial of the right of the assignee. It is the assignment which gives the right, if any was given. 3 Petersd. 486. The act of congress limits the salaries of gaugers to $1500; and thus it is obvious, that Milnor and Thompson had not a scintilla of legal right to further compensation from the United States. A claim of this kind, being one for a gratuity, a benefaction, cannot be passed under the assignment. It must be an actual interest, not an expectancy. If the assignee of Milnor had any right, it should have been presented to congress. The power of the legislature over the matter was complete. They have given the sum allowed to Robert Milnor; and the circuit court had no power to alter the donation. The secretary of the treasury rejected the application of the assignee, and his decision was conclusive. Cited, Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497.
Bradley, for the appellee, insisted, that the claim by the appellee, as assignee of Robert Milnor, to the portion of the sum allowed by congress to Robert Milnor, was valid; and that the claim had passed to the assignee, under the assignment. The appellant claimed from congress a compensation for extra services performed by him for the United States, before he took the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, and the claim was allowed. There was a subsisting equity in favor of the petitioners. It was such a claim as, although a suit could not be instituted for its recovery, in an action by the United States, against the petitioners, it would have been matter of set-off. United States v. Fillebrown, 7 Pet. 28; United States v. Ripley, Ibid. 26. The principle of law which may be derived from these cases is, that if any one shall perform services at the instance or request of the government of the United States, he is entitled to compensation. The right to compensation is property belonging to the party who has done the services, and as such belongs to the creditors of the insolvent. The principles which are in question in this case, were settled by the court in the case of Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193. It was held, in that case, that it was immaterial who presented the claim. The money recovered belonged to the assignee.
Coxe denied, that any legal claim existed on the United States for compensation. The salary of the gaugers was fixed by law, and whatever else they obtained was a gratuity. He cited 13 Pet. 409, as in all respects sustaining the claims of the appellant. The decision of the court in the case Comegys v Vasse, was given on the terms of the Spanish treaty, which fully authorized the claim of the assignee.
The question in this cause is, whether a claim on the United States passed by an assignment, made by Milnor, an insolvent, by force of an act of Pennsylvania, where the insolvent resided, and where the assignment took place. The application was made to the court of common pleas of Philadelphia county, 24th December 1838. According to the requirements of the insolvent act, there was presented, 'a statement of all the estate, effects and property of the petitioner, wheresoever situate, and of whatsoever kind.' He says, 'your petitioner has no property of any kind, except the following claim, viz: A claim on the government of the United States for about $3774.50.' Assignees were appointed by the court, to whom the following assignment was made.
Know all men, by these presents, that I, Robert Milnor, the abovenamed petitioner, have assigned, transferred and set over, and by these presents do assign, transfer and set over, unto George W. Metz and Aaron Ross, their heirs and assigns, all my estate, property and effects whatsoever, to, for and upon the uses, trusts and purposes designated by the act entitled 'an act relating to insolvent debtors,' passed the 16th day of June A. D. 1836. Witness my hand and seal, this 11th day of January, A. D. 1839.
ROBERT MILNOR. [L. S.]
Ross refused to serve, and was discharged by the court, leaving Metz the sole trustee. On the same day, Milnor was discharged.
On the 2d of May 1840, congress passed an act for the relief of Robert Milnor and John Thompson, ordering the secretary of the treasury to pay to them $2757.23, 'being the amount of fees equitably due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Burgess
...the estate." Vote, 276 F.3d at 1027. The cases cited by the Appellees do not hold otherwise. The Appellees cite Milnor v. Metz, 41 U.S. 221, 16, Pet. 221, 10 L.Ed. 943 (1842), and Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529, 11 S.Ct. 885, 35 L.Ed. 550 (1891), for the proposition that a pure loss is pro......
-
In re Supreme Beef Processors, Inc.
...precedent. See 438 F.3d at 503-05 (citing Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529, 11 S.Ct. 885, 35 L.Ed. 550 (1891), and Milnor v. Metz, 41 U.S. 221, 16 Pet. 221, 10 L.Ed. 943 (1842), and emphasizing both decisions distinguish between the existence of a right and the ability to enforce that right)......
-
In re Bracewell
...relies on are two cases from the 1800's, Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529, 11 S.Ct. 885, 35 L.Ed. 550 (1891), and Milnor v. Metz, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 221, 10 L.Ed. 943 (1842). Of course, both of those decisions pre-date the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code, and the critical language we are inte......
-
McCann v. Randall
...1 Daniel, Neg.Inst. §§ 436, 437a; Pingree v. Coffin, 12 Gray, 321; Pierce v. U.S., 7 Ct.Cl. 68; Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666; Milnor v. Metz, 16 Pet. 221; Erwin 97 U.S. 395; Railroad Co. v. U.S., 112 U.S. 737, 5 S.Ct. 368; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U.S. 556. The draft in suit constituted pa......