Thomas Ap Catesby Jones, Plaintiff In Error v. the United States

Decision Date01 January 1849
Citation12 L.Ed. 870,7 How. 681,48 U.S. 681
PartiesTHOMAS AP CATESBY JONES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

It was argued by Mr. Walter Jones, for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Toucey (Attorney-General), for the United States.

Mr. Jones contended, that although no quarterly balances were struck, yet an analysis of the account would show that the postmaster was in default continually.

Thus, on the 30th of September, 1836, (the end of the first quarter after the date of the bond,) the balance against him was $1,894 27

On the 31st December, 1836, it was 1,793 43

On the 31st March, 1837, it was 3,027 47

On the 30th June, 1837, it was 3,866 40

On the 30th September, 1837, it was 6,020 84

On the 31st December, 1837, it was 5,446 18

On the 31st March, 1838, it was 3,509 70

On the 30th June, 1838, it was 3,937 98

On the 30th September, 1838, it was 4,530 05

On the 31st December, 1838, it was 5,297 61
And on the 31st March, 1839, it was 6,384 32

The sureties were therefore discharged under the operation of the act of Congress above recited.

Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.

The case in the Circuit Court was an action of debt, instituted to recover the amount of a default claimed by the United States of Walter F. Jones, as postmaster of the Borough of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia. The said Walter F. Jones, having been appointed postmaster of Norfolk, executed, on the 8th day of August, in the year 1836, his bond, with the plaintiff in error and one Duncan Robertson as his sureties, in the penalty of ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his office. In the year 1839, Walter F. Jones was removed from office, the United States claiming against him a balance of $5,515.89 as due from him on the 31st of August in the year last mentioned; and to recover this balance, the action on his official bond was instituted in the Circuit Court against him and his sureties. After the institution of the suit, it was abated as to Walter F. Jones by his death; Robertson made default in the case, and as to him a writ of inquiry of damages was executed; the plaintiff in error alone appeared and made defence, upon four several pleas, as to each of which replication and issue were taken. The first plea interposed was that of condition performed generally. The second and third pleas, presenting substantially the same defence, rely upon the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1825, entitled 'An act to reduce into one the several acts establishing and regulating the Post-Office Department,' and particularly upon that portion of the act which prescribes that the Postmaster-General shall obtain from the postmasters their accounts and vouchers for their receipts and expenditures once in three months, or oftener, with the balances therein arising in favor of the General Post-Office; and that, if any postmaster, or other person authorized to receive the postage of letters, &c., shall neglect or refuse to render his accounts, and pay over to the Postmaster-General the balance due by him at the end of every three months, it shall be the duty of the Postmaster-General to cause a suit to be commenced against the person so neglecting or refusing; and if default be made by the postmaster at any time, and the Postmaster-General shall fail to institute suit against such postmaster and sureties within two years after such default shall be made, then and in that case the said sureties shall not be held liable to the United States, nor shall suit be instituted against them. These pleas further aver, that, subsequently to the execution of the bond of Walter F. Jones on the 8th of August, 1836, and during the year 1837, sundry defaults were made by him in failing to pay over money received by him as postmaster, and that these defaults were permitted to remain unclaimed by suit up to the 12th of March 1840, the period at which this suit was instituted; a length of time from the occurrence of those defaults comprising an interval of more than two years.

The fourth plea of the defendant below is simply a general averment, that the causes of action in the declaration mentioned did not occur within two years next before the institution of the suit.

The only evidence adduced in this case, on behalf of the plaintiffs below, was the account certified under the act of Congress from the Treasury Department against the postmaster, brought down to the 31st of August, 1839, exhibiting a balance in favor of the United States, at that date, of $5,515.89; and all the evidence on behalf of the defendant was a letter to him from the Postmaster-General, dated on the 19th of December, 1837, announcing the fact, that a draft had been drawn on the defendant in favor of the Treasury Department, for the sum of $5,000 in specie, and requesting the deposit of that sum with the Bank of Virginia, at Richmond, as the agent for the treasury. Upon the aforegoing pleadings and evidence, the following prayers were made, and instructions given at the trial.

The attorney for the United States moved the court to instruct the jury, 'that all payments made by the postmaster, Walter F. Jones, to the General Post-Office, after the execution of his official bond, on the 8th of August, 1836, and subsequently to any default at the end of a quarter, without any direction by him or by the Postmaster-General as to the application of said payments, should be applied in the first instance to extinguish each successive default in the order in which it fell due; and if, by such application of said payments, the jury shall believe from the evidence that all of the defaults which occurred two years before the institution of this suit were extinguished within two years after the same were respectively committed, that the act of Congress, which limits the institution of suits against the sureties of a postmaster to two years after the default of the principal, has no application to this case, and cannot affect in any degree the plaintiffs' right to recover in this action.'

And the counsel for the defendant moved this court to instruct the jury,—'1st. That if the jury shall find that the said deputy postmaster, Walter F. Jones, committed any default or defaults in office at any time or times more than two years before the commencement of this suit, and that such default or defaults were then known to the Postmaster-General; and, further, that the said deputy postmaster continued in default to an equal or greater amount thenceforth, until he was discharged from office; that the Postmaster-General failed to institute, or cause to be instituted,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Carson v. Cook County Liquor Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1913
    ... ... Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from Carter County Court; I ... N. Mason, ... Carson and ... another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error ... Reversed and ... Sandiford, 7 Wheat. 13, 5 ... L.Ed. 384; United States v. Kirkpatrick et al., 9 ... Wheat. 720, 6 L.Ed. 199; Jones v. United States, 7 ... How. 681, 12 L.Ed. 870; ... the same person. In State v. Thomas, 33 N.C. 251, ... the payment was in horses and ... ...
  • State v. Hill
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1896
    ... ... United States and the constitution of the state of ... this action the state of Nebraska, as plaintiff, seeks to ... recover from J. E. Hill, as ... Gilmore, 40 Me. 378; Jones v. United States, 7 How ... [U.S.] 684; ... Counsel for defendant in error ... contended: "The money which he treasurer ... ( United States v ... Thomas, 15 Wall. [U.S.] 337; Cumberland County v ... ...
  • Carson v. Cook Cnty. Liquor Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1913
    ...Tayloe v. Sandiford, 7 Wheat. 13, 5 L. Ed. 384; United States v. Kirkpatrick et al., 9 Wheat. 720, 6 L. Ed. 199; Jones v. United States, 48 U.S. 681, 7 How. 681, 12 L. Ed. 870; Nat. Bank of New York v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 94 U.S. 437, 24 L. Ed. 176. It is, therefore, immaterial that the p......
  • SS Silberblatt, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 22, 1965
    ...interest from the date of the notice of default to the surety Travelers, attorney's fees, and costs. 9 In Jones v. United States, 7 How. 681, 48 U.S. 681, 687, 12 L.Ed. 870 (1849), the Supreme Court said: In the general proposition upon this subject, all the courts agree. It is this: — "Tha......
  • 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