Schaumburg v. United States

Decision Date01 October 1880
PartiesSCHAUMBURG v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. George W. Biddle and Mr. Charles Henry Jones for the plaintiff in error.

The Solicitor-General, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484. Claims for credit can be used in suits against persons indebted to the United States to reduce or extinguish the debt, but not as the foundation of a judgment against the government. In the present case the court instructed the jury as matter of law that the plaintiff in error, from July 1, 1836, until March 24, 1845, was in the military service of the United States as a first lieutenant of dragoons or cavalry; and that he was entitled as such to credit for the pay and emoluments that accrued during that period, and this was admitted to exceed the debt sued on by the United States. The jury thereupon brought in a verdict for the defendant. Had the jury gone further and struck the balance that would be due from the United States, no judgment could have been rendered for it. Any verdict, therefore, beyond the one actually given would have been fruitless. The court itself decided that the plaintiff in error was entitled to his pay and emoluments from July 1, 1836, to March 24, 1845. While sometimes the jury have been permitted to certify to a balance they find to be due from the government in cases of this kind, and under some circumstances it may be proper they should do so, a refusal of the court to direct that it be done cannot be reviewed here.

Judgment affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • United States v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • July 31, 1928
    ...any credit on striking a balance on just demands. United States v. Eckford, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 484, 18 L. Ed. 920; Schaumburg v. United States, 103 U. S. 667, 26 L. Ed. 599. Lease or Contract of During the early part of 1918 the Seattle Construction & Dry Dock Company was the owner of a shi......
  • United States v. Shaw
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1940
    ...77 L.Ed. 1372. 35 6 Wall. 484, 491, 18 L.Ed. 920. 36 Cf. Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290, 13 L.Ed. 693. 37 Cf. Schaumburg v. United States, 103 U.S. 667, 26 L.Ed. 599. 38 49 Stat. 1987: 'Sec. 203. The United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation shall cease to exist and shall......
  • Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 3, 1989
    ...to the sovereign immunity doctrine and is an impermissible exercise of the trial court's jurisdiction under Schaumburg v. United States, 103 U.S. 667, 26 L.Ed. 599 (1881). Because the Tribe is immune from suit, the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the counterclaim. We theref......
  • United States v. Wooten
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 14, 1930
    ...is erroneous. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 245 U. S. 493, 38 S. Ct. 170, 62 L. Ed. 425; Schaumburg v. United States, 103 U. S. 667, 26 L. Ed. 599; De Groot v. United States, 5 Wall. 419, 18 L. Ed. 700. Furthermore, that the defendants asked no affirmative relief, and ......
  • 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