United States v. Sherman
| Decision Date | 01 October 1878 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 235,98 U.S. 565 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHERMAN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. William A. Maury for the relator.
The Attorney-General, contra.
This was an application to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for a mandamus to John Sherman, Secretary of the Treasury, commanding him to pay to Alexander McLeod, the relator, the sum of $4,279.94, with interest from the ninth day of November, 1874. The facts of the case, as they are made to appear, are as follows:——
On the eighteenth day of June, 1869, the relator recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina against T. C. Callicott, a supervising special agent of the Treasury Department, for the sum of $11,700.68, basides $119.30 for costs. On the 5 the of July next following a fi. fa. was issued upon this judgment. The execution, however, was suspended by a writ of error sent from this court to the Circuit Court, sued out by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. But the writ was dismissed on the seventeenth day of February, 1871. Nothing further appears to have been done until June 8, 1874, when the relator applied to the Circuit Court for a certificate of probable cause under the act of Congress of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 741), and the act of July 28, 1866 (14 id. 329); and the court certified 'that on the trial of said cause (in the Circuit Court) it appeared there was probable cause moving the defendant (Callicott), for the acts done by him whereon the judgment was had and recovered against him,' 'and, further, that the said acts were done under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.' The certificate thus obtained was then brought to the Treasury Department, and on the 4th of November next following the first auditor adjusted the account, the certificated that there was due from he United States to the relator the sum of $12,039.50, the amount of the judgment recovered in the Circuit Court, with interest from June 8, 1874, the time when the certificate of probable cause was given. This adjustment was confirmed and certified by the controller, and that sum was received by the relator on the 9th of the same month.
He now contends that it was an insufficient payment, and that there is still due to him from the United States the sum of $4,279.94, with interest from November 9, aforesaid. It will be noticed that in the adjustment of the account by the first auditor, and in the payment made, no interest was allowed for the time which intervened between the rendition of the judgment and the date when the certificate of probable cause was obtained. That interest as the rate allowed in South Carolina amounted to $4,279.94, and the principal question now raised is whether the United States is under obligation to pay that. The mandamus asked for is to compel allowance and payment of that interest.
We have, therefore, to inquire whether the United States is under obligation to pay interest on the judgment obtained in the Circuit Court from the time when the judgment was rendered, until the certificate of probable cause was given. To this question alone we address ourselves. Several objections to the issue of the mandamus asked by the relator—some of them gave—have been interposed by the defendant, but we do not think it necessary to consider them. The twelfth section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 741), relative to suits against revenue officers, enacted that where a recovery shall be had in any such suit, and the court shall certify that there was probable cause for the act done by the collector or other officer, or that he acted under the directions of the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer of the government, no execution shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Library of Congress v. Shaw
...claims grounded on the belated receipt of funds, even when characterized as compensation for delay. See United States v. Sherman, 8 Otto 565, 568, 98 U.S. 565, 568, 25 L.Ed. 235 (1879). Thus, whether the loss to be compensated by an increase in a fee award stems from an opportunity cost or ......
-
United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe
...45 Ct.Cl. 440, 470 (1910); United States v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211, 10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565, 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v. N. Y. Ray......
-
Brown & Williamson, Ltd. v. United States
...States, 45 Ct.Cl. 440, 470 (1910); United States v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211 10 S.Ct. 920, 34 L.Ed. 336 (1890); United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565 25 L.Ed. 235 (1878); United States ex rel. Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1160, 32 L.Ed. 159 (1888); United States v......
-
Hammond-Knowlton v. United States
...shall, upon final judgment, be provided for and paid out of the proper appropriation from the Treasury." In United States v. Sherman, 98 U. S. 565, 25 L.Ed. 235, 1878, (as interpreted in Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, supra) it was held that the effect of the filing of such a certificate is t......
-
A QUALIFIED DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...of probable cause at least sometimes were for the purpose of "indemnification" rather than immunity. See, e.g., United States v. Sherman, 98 U.S. 565, 566-67 (1879). How these statutes worked merits sustained, comprehensive analysis beyond the scope of this (79) See Baude, supra note 4, at ......