Shaw v. United States, 6606.
| Decision Date | 06 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 6606.,6606. |
| Citation | 75 F.2d 175 |
| Parties | SHAW v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Howard Simon, of Detroit, Mich. (Walter E. Oxtoby, of Detroit, Mich., and Stewart & Black, of Port Huron, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
O. P. M. Brown, of Washington, D. C. (Gregory H. Frederick and Charles B. W. Aldrich, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
The United States filed suit against the administrator of the estate of Sydney C. McLouth to recover the balance of the purchase price of lumber and marine engines sold and delivered to McLouth by the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation together with the value of a quantity of miscellaneous shipbuilding material owned by the plaintiff and converted by McLouth to his own use. Defendant filed a plea of general issue, with notice of special defense. By amendment he elaborated his special defense, pleading a judgment obtained by the Ingram-Day Lumber Company against McLouth in the amount of $58,000 (Ingram-Day Co. v. McLouth, 275 U. S. 471, 48 S. Ct. 153, 72 L. Ed. 378), which judgment he alleged the plaintiff was obligated to pay under an agreement made by McLouth with the plaintiff's agent, the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, and praying that the liability of McLouth's estate for the judgment be allowed as a set-off against the claim of the plaintiff. On motion of the plaintiff the trial court dismissed so much of the answer as asserted the set-off. The trial proceeded, and at the conclusion of the evidence the defendant requested that the jury be instructed that defendant was entitled to offset the judgment secured by the Ingram-Day Lumber Company against McLouth against the claim of the United States, and that as the judgment exceeded the claim of the United States, a verdict should be returned for the defendant. This instruction was refused and an exception saved. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, on which there was judgment.
Section 774, tit. 28 USCA, provides: "In suits brought by the United States against individuals, no claim for a credit shall be admitted, upon trial, except such as appear to have been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury, for their examination, and to have been by them disallowed, in whole or in part, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant is, at the time of the trial, in possession of vouchers not before in his power to procure, and that he was prevented from exhibiting a claim for such credit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Shaw (In re McLouth's Estate)
...estate in the amount of $40,165.48 in favor of the United States Government was reduced to judgment in the federal courts. Shaw v. United States, 6 Cir., 75 F.2d 175. This adjudicated liability was also filed as a claim in the St. Clair probate court proceedings in the McLouth estate. Later......
-
United States v. Shaw
...took no part in the decision of this case. 1 Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth, 275 U.S. 471, 48 S.Ct. 153, 72 L.Ed. 378. 2 Shaw v. United States, 6 Cir., 75 F.2d 175. 3 The Act of March 3, 1797, 1 Stat. 512, 514, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 774, 28 U.S.C.A. § 774, provides that in 'suits brough......
-
United States v. Hawthorne
...v. United States, 188 U.S. 156, 23 S.Ct. 279, 47 L.Ed. 425; Fisher Flouring Mills v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 232; Shaw v. United States, 6 Cir., 75 F.2d 175; North Dakota-Montana W. G. Ass'n, v. United States, 8 Cir., 66 F.2d 573, 92 A.L.R. 1484. It follows that the motion to dismiss......
-
Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. US
...by the United States, it was proper for the trial court to refuse to direct the jury to allow the claim as a set-off. Shaw v. United States, 75 F.2d 175, 176 (6th Cir.1935) (citation However, as previously stated, Provident relies upon a more recent Fifth Circuit opinion which analyzes § 24......