The United States, Appellant v. John Lemore
| Decision Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Citation | 4 How. 286,45 U.S. 286,11 L.Ed. 977 |
| Parties | THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, v. JOHN C. McLEMORE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Middle Tennessee, sitting as a court of equity.
It is unnecessary to recite all the circumstances which led to the filing of the bill in equity, as it was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. The facts in the case are summarily stated in the opinion of the court. It is proper, however, to exhibit the account to which the opinion of Mr. Justice Wayne refers:——
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SEARCY'S EXECUTORS AND SECURITIES.
DR. Robert Searcy, late District Paymaster, in account with the U.S.
10 years, 8 months, 20 days.__553.91._________
Amounts carried forward.$34,245.85.33,626.21
The case was argued by Mr. Mason (Attorney-General), for the appellant, and by Mr. Brinley and Mr. Eaton, for the defendant.
This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Middle Tennessee.
The bill was filed by McLemore and Cantwell, surviving executor of Robert Searcy, deceased, and surviving executor of George M. Deoderick, deceased, representing that a judgment was obtained by the United States against the executors of Searcy, for the sum of seventeen thousand and twenty-eight dollars and forty-one cents. That various payments had been made on the judgment until the whole or nearly the whole had been paid. That the last execution on the judgment was issued the 10th of January, 1842, for a balance claimed on the judgment of two thousand eight hundred thirty-two dollars and thirty-seven cents. And they state that their payments were made to different persons named, who succeeded each other in the office of District Attorney of the United States for Middle Tennessee; and that by the absence and death of a part of them it is difficult to show the sums paid. That the money was principally collected by the district attorneys on notes handed them for collection, the proceeds of which, when received, were to be applied to the discharge of the judgment. That this arrangement was sanctioned by the treasury department. And the prayer of the bill is, that the judgment may be enjoined, &c.
The District Attorney of the United States answered the bill, and the matter of payments was referred to a master, who repected a balance against the United States, after paying the judgment. On this report, the district judge holding the Circuit Court decreed a perpetual injunction, and that the United States should pay the costs.
There was no jurisdiction of this case in the Circuit Court, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElroy v. Swart
... ... timber he did from the Carter lands; that John S. Minor ... furnished him with supplies while he was ... 4. SUITS AGAINST THE SEVERAL STATES--ELEVENTH ... AMENDMENT TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. In ... ...
-
King v. Davis
... 137 F. 222 KING v. DAVIS et al. United States Circuit Court, W.D. Virginia. January 25, 1905 ... (1) ... John Allen ... (2) ... Cyrus Blankenship ... ...
-
Shaw v. Library of Congress
...85 L.Ed. 1058, 1061 (1941); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 196, 1 S.Ct. 240, 27 L.Ed. 171 (1882); United States v. McLemore, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 286, 11 L.Ed. 977 (1846).43 E.g., United States v. Sherwood, supra note 42, 312 U.S. at 590, 61 S.Ct. at 771, 85 L.Ed. at 1063.44 E.g., Uni......
-
United States v. Lee Kaufman v. Same
...discussed or the reasons for it given, but it has always been treated as an established doctrine. U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436; Same v. McLemore 4 How. 286; Hill v. U. S. 9 How. 386; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. 195; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15. On the other hadn, while acc......
-
Chapter § 6.01 Introduction
...35 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 521, 526 (2003).[9] See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882); United States v. McLemore, 45 U.S. 286, 288 (1846). “The Constitution does not refer to sovereign immunity, and the rules pertaining to the defense are judge made.” Helen Hershkoff, Jurisdi......