United States v. Gilmore Et Al
| Decision Date | 01 December 1868 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. GILMORE ET AL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for Nebraska; the case having been submitted by Mr. Ashton, Assistant Attorney-General, for the United States.
No argument on the other side.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE stated the case and delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of debt upon the bond of Gilmore, one of the defendants in error, as receiver of public moneys 'for the district of lands subject to sale in the Territory of Nebraska,' and also as a depositary of public moneys.
Upon the trial the defendants claimed a credit for the hire of certain clerks employed by Gilmore as such depositary, and offered proof in support of the demand. The attorney of the United States objected to the admission of the evidence upon several grounds. One of them was, that it must first be shown that the claim had been exhibited to the proper accounting officer of the treasury and disallowed, and that the exhibition and disallowance could be proved only by the certificate of such officer.
The same things occurred with reference to a claim for office rent, set up by Gilmore as such depositary.
Gilmore subsequently testified as follows:
'I presented these claims to the accounting officer, and they were disallowed.'
To what officer they were presented is not disclosed. This is all the testimony the bill of exceptions contains upon the subject.
The statutory provisions prescribing what shall be done by the debtor in such cases are found in the 4th section of the act of March 3d, 1797.1 That section, so far as it is material to be considered in the case before us, is as follows:
'In suits between the United States and individuals, no claim for a credit shall be admitted upon the trial but such as shall appear to have been presented to the accounting officers of the treasury for their examination, and by them disallowed in whole or in part.'
Those officers were then the auditor and comptroller. There was but one of each at that time.2 It was made the duty of the auditor 'to receive all public accounts, and after examination to transmit the accounts, with the vouchers and certificate, to the comptroller for his decision thereon.'
The act of the 25th of April, 1812,3 created the General Land Office, and transferred to the commissioner the duties of the auditor in respect to all accounts relating to the public lands. The act of March 3d, 1817,4 created four additional auditors and one additional comptroller. It gave the charge of all accounts accruing in the Treasury Department to the first auditor, and made it his duty to report them to the first comptroller. The language employed is the same as that used in the act of 1797. This did not affect the duties of the Commissioner of the General Land Office as to all accounts relating to the public lands, which the act of 1812 had devolved upon him.
Receivers and depositaries are required to keep accounts of their contingent expenses. Those accounts are separate and distinct from those of their receipts and disbursements of the public moneys. Where the offices of receiver and depositary are united in the same person, the expense accounts of the two offices are nevertheless required to be kept separately from each other.
The claims in question in the case before us grew out of that branch of Gilmore's duties which related to his office of depositary, and had no connection with his office of receiver. They should, therefore, have been presented to the first auditor for examination, and afterwards to the first comptroller for his final decision. If disallowed, the disallowances would have appeared in the 'statement of the differences of account' transmitted by the auditor to the comptroller with the accounts, vouchers, and certificate, as required...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Peterson
...pleading. The object of each is to concentrate the controversy upon the questions which should control the result. United States v. Gilmore, 7 Wall. 491, 494, 19 L. Ed. 282; Tucker v. United States, 151 U. S. 164, 168, 14 Sup. Ct. 299, 38 L. Ed. 112. No one is entitled in a civil case to tr......
-
United States v. Heard
...which affirmed a judgment permitting a recovery, without any pleading that the statute had been complied with; United States v. Gilmore, 7 Wall. 491, 74 U.S. 491, 19 L.Ed. 282, which does not pass upon or consider the pleading question, but holds that proofs of credit should not have been p......
-
Andrew Smythe v. United States
...5 Wall. 431, 18 L. ed. 703; United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484, sub nom. United States v. Tillon, 18 L. ed. 920; United States v. Gilmore, 7 Wall. 491, 19 L. ed. 282; Halliburton v. United States, 13 Wall. 63, 20 L. ed. It is said, however, that the government has not suffered any substa......
-
United States v. Kerr
... ... examination, and to have been by him disallowed. This is made ... a condition precedent to recovery against the government, ... even by counterclaim, under section 951 of the Revised ... Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 695). See, also, United ... States v. Gilmore, 74 U.S. 491, 19 L.Ed. 282; ... Watkins v. United States, 76 U.S. 759, 764, 19 L.Ed ... 820; United States v. Patrick, 73 F. 800, 20 C.C.A ... [196 F. 506.] ... Yates v. United States, 90 F. 57, 32 C.C.A. 507 ... The ... demurrer will therefore be overruled as to the second ... ...