United States v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 06 October 1902 |
| Docket Number | 189. |
| Citation | 118 F. 89 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BOYD et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
William Warner, U.S. Dist. Atty., and A. S. Vanvalkenburgh Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty.
Frank B. Williams and Thomas J. Delaney, for defendants.
The petition substantially alleges that on the 9th day of October, 1890, Sempronius H. Boyd was duly appointed by the president of the United States and qualified as consul general at Bangkok, Siam, at a salary of $5,000 per year. He executed bond as such consul general, with the defendants Thomas J. Delaney and Robert J. McElhany as sureties. The condition of the bond, in so far as the same is material to this issue, is as follows:
'The condition of the above obligation is such that if the above-bounden Sempronius H. Boyd, appointed consul general of the United States at Bangkok, Siam, shall truly and faithfully discharge the duties of his said office according to law, and shall truly and faithfully account for, pay over, and deliver up all fees, moneys, goods effects, books, records, papers, and other property which shall come to the hands of the said Sempronius H. Boyd, or to the hands of any person for his use as such consul general, under any law now or hereafter enacted, and that he will truly and faithfully perform all other duties now or hereafter lawfully imposed upon him as such consul general.'
It is assigned for a breach of said bond that the said Sempronius H. Boyd drew drafts upon the United States for salary, and that he received as salary, for the period from July 1, 1893, to October 26, 1893, the sum of $1,605.76, which was in excess of the amount of salary then due him $2.50; and, further, that he charged and received as his salary for the period from July 12, 1892, to October 26, 1892, the sum of $1,453.83, whereas there was due him on account of such salary only the sum of $726.90; that during said period from July 12, 1892, to October 26, 1892, he was absent from his post of duty upon his statutory leave; that during such period of such absence it is provided by law and the existing consular regulations that when such consul general is absent on leave the vice consul officer acting in his place is entitled to one-half the compensation of the office from the day of assuming its duties, unless there is an agreement for a different rate. It is then alleged that during such absence the vice consul general acting in his place made no waiver or agreement for a different rate of payment than is provided in the regulations aforesaid, and he was therefore entitled to one-half the compensation of the office during said period, all of which was paid to the said Sempronius H. Boyd; that afterwards said vice consul brought suit against the United States for his compensation, and recovered therein the sum of $726.90, which has been paid by the United States. It is then alleged that the said Sempronius H. Boyd has failed and refused to account for and pay over to the United States said excess of salary so paid to him. After allowing upon said indebtedness a credit of $27.78 on account of contingent expenses due him, judgment is asked for $701.62. It is further alleged that said Sempronius H. Boyd died testate the 1st day of July, 1894, leaving as his heirs and personal representatives his widow, the defendant Margaret M. Boyd, and his daughter, the defendant Cordie B. Delaney; that said Margaret M. Boyd thereafter qualified as his executrix in the probate court of Greene county, Mo., on the 25th day of September, 1894; and that she was finally discharged therefrom on the 25th day of September, 1897. As grounds of recovery against Mrs. Boyd and Mrs. Delaney it is alleged that they received by inheritance from said Sempronius H. Boyd a large amount of property, both real and personal, and now hold the same. The defendants demur to the petition.
As the defendants Thomas J. Delaney and Robert J....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grubbs v. Smith
...22 L. Ed. 599; Lindsay v. First Nat. Bank, 156 U.S. 485, 493, 15 S.Ct. 472, 39 L.Ed. 505; Berkey v. Cornell (C.C.) 90 F. 711; United States v. Boyd (C.C.) 118 F. 89; Michelsen v. Penney (D.C.) 10 F.Supp. 537, 540. In the case of Thompson v. Central Ohio Railway Co. (1867) 6 Wall. 134, 137, ......
-
Bingham County v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.
... ... Farnum, 108 Cal. 562, 41 P. 445; Schloss v ... White, 16 Cal. 66; United States v. Boyd, 118 ... F. 89; Overacre v. Garrett, 5 Lan. (N. Y.) 156.) ... Appellant ... ...
-
State ex rel. Hardesty v. Stalnaker
...can be found upon the issue of the liability of sureties for overpayments in the salaries of public officers. In United States v. Boyd, 118 F. 89 (W.D.Mo.1902), the United States government brought an action against the heirs of a deceased public officer and his sureties to recover salary o......
-
United States v. Kauhoe
... ... must be presumed to have known. The contract of a surety is ... to be strictly construed and his responsibility is limited by ... the terms of his bond. National Surety Co. v. United ... States, 129 F. 70, 63 C.C.A. 512; United States v ... Boyd (C.C.) 118 F. 89; Miller v. Stewart, 9 ... Wheat. 680, 6 L.Ed. 189; United States v ... Singer, 82 U.S. 111, 21 L.Ed. 49 ... The ... plaintiff in error attempts to find a consideration for the ... assumption by the sureties of a liability vastly in excess of ... that to which they ... ...