100 Argument for Appellants. never having been paid to them, or their duly authorized agent, the liability arising upon the law, and the contract it imports, has not been discharged, and the United States are liable to the claimants for the moneys specified in the statute. After the adjustment of an account between the United States and the persons named in the act, on the 11th of July, 1870, a warrant was drawn on the next day directing the payment to them of the amount specified, upon which a draft, dated the 12th of July, was issued, payable "to Wm. Bailey, Wm. Leetham, and John Leetham, owners, or their legal representatives, or order, $200,070 34." On this draft an indorsement was made by the comptroller, directing its payment "on the indorsement of A. E. Godeffroy, att'y in fact." This man, thereupon, indorsed the draft on the same day, the 12th of July, and got the money. The claimants have never received a dollar of it. The money was paid to Godeffroy upon a power of attorney given to him. in England, in February, 1869, long before the passage of the act of Congress, by William Bailey, William Leetham, and the personal representatives of John Leetham; and which, of course, fulfilled none of the requirements of the act of July 29th, 1847, or the act of February 26th, 1853. This power of attorney was absolutely null and void; and no payment under it to Godeffroy could bind the claimants, or discharge the debt. Act of July 29th, 1846, 9 Stat. 41; Act of February 26th, 1853, 10 Stat. 170; Coté's Case, 3 Court of Claims, 64; Pierce's Case, 2 Court of Claims, 599; United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407; Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484, 489; Becker v. Sweetzer, 15 Minn. 427, 435. The claimants cannot be affected with any responsibility for the illegal payment of this money at the treasury to Godeffroy, and are not chargeable with any wrong or fault in connection with that transaction, and the United States are, and should be held, solely and exclusively responsi ble in law for the payment of the money to that person, and its consequent loss to the claimants. The fallacy of the argument on the other side consists in sedulously ignoring the character and relations of the claimants, who were British subjects, resident in their own country, and who knew nothing, and were not bound to know anything, of the acts of Congress of July Opinion of the Court. The defence proceeds 29th, 1846, and February 26th, 1853. upon the idea that the claimants participated in the violation. of law committed in the payment of this money to Godeffroy, and that the maxim, in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis, furnishes the rule of decision in the case. If there was no delictum on the part of the claimants, there was no par delictum on their part, and the rule expressly requires equal wrong in order that the law should leave the parties where it finds them. "The maxim does not apply unless both the litigating parties are in delicto; it cannot be insisted upon as a defence, either by or against an innocent party." Broom's Legal Maxims, 724. No delictum, fault, or blame could be imputable to the claimants under any circumstances, in this transaction, unless they had actual knowledge of the acts of Congress which discredited and invalidated the power of attorney, which it is not shown they had. No one is presumed to know the law of a foreign country. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. § 140; Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. 111; Leslie v. Baillie, 2 Y. & C. Ch. Cas. 91. It was the duty of the government to obey the act of 1853, and to protect these foreign claimants against the consequences of their own ignorance; and there can be no reason for excusing it from the performance of its duty to them, because the claimants, without knowledge of its statutes, gave a power of attorney, which those statutes declared void, to the man who received the money. As the claimants had no knowledge of the acts of Congress, there was no fault, wrong, or negligence on their part in intrusting Godeffroy with their power of attorney, and the whole blame, in the transaction of the payment of this money to him at the treasury, is therefore imputable to the government, and the government is solely responsible for the consequences of his infidelity. Mr. Solicitor General for the United States. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. After reciting the facts he continued: It is contended, on behalf of appellants, that the power of attorney executed in 1869 to Godeffroy-upon the authority of Opinion of the Court. which alone was payment made to him-was, under the laws of the United States, absolutely null and void; consequently, no payment under it could bind the claimants or discharge the government from its obligation to pay the sums specified in the act of 1870. This presents the controlling question on the present appeal. Its determination depends upon the construction to be given to the act of July 29th, 1846, 9 Stat. 41, entitled "An Act in relation to the payment of claims," and to the first and seventh sections of the act of February 26th, 1853, 10 Stat. 170, entitled "An Act to prevent frauds upon the treasury of the United States." The act of 1846 related to claims against the United States allowed by a resolution or act of Congress. That statute directed that they should not be paid to any other person than the claimant, his executor or administrator, unless upon the production to the proper disbursing officer of a warrant of attorney executed "after the enactment of the resolution or act allowing the claim." The first section of the act of 1853 declares that "all transfers and assignments hereafter made of any claim upon the United States, or any part or share thereof, or interest thereon, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, or orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, unless the same shall' be freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof." That act further provides (§ 7) that its provisions and those of the act of 1846 shall" apply and extend to all claims against the United States, whether allowed by special acts of Congress, or arising under general laws or treaties, or in any other manner whatever." These enactments have been under examination in several cases heretofore decided in this court, some of which are now relied on to support the proposition that officers of the treasury were forbidden by statute from recognizing Godeffroy under any circumstances as agent of claimants, with authority Opinion of the Court. as between them and the government to receive the warrant and draft when issued. But we do not understand that any of these cases involved the precise question now presented for determination. In United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407, it was ruled that a claim against the United States could not be assigned so as to enable the assignee to bring suit against the government in his own name in the court of claims. In Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484, the question was as to the validity of certain orders drawn by a claimant, before the allowance of his claim, upon the attorneys having it in charge, directing the latter to pay certain sums out of the proceeds when collected, and which orders, being accepted by the attorneys, were purchased by Spofford in good faith and for value. Upon the treasury warrant being issued, the claimant refused to admit the validity either of the orders he had given or the acceptances made by his attorneys. Thereupon Spofford sought, by suit against the claimant and his attorneys, to enforce a compliance with the orders and acceptances of which he had become assignee and holder. The court adjudged that the transfer or assignment to Spofford was, under the act of 1853-carried into the Revised Statutes, § 3477-a nullity as between him and the claimant. No question arose in that case as to what would have been the effect upon the rights of the claimant had the officers of the government recognized the assignment of Spofford. In Erwin v. United States, 97 U. S. 392, it was ruled that the act of 1853 applied to cases of voluntary assignments of demands against the government, and did not embrace cases where the title is transferred by operation of law. "The passing of claims to heirs, devisees, or assignees in bankruptcy," said the court, "are not within the evil at which the statute aimed." But what was said in Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, seems to be more directly in point. That was the case of a voluntary assignment by a debtor of his property for the benefit of creditors, including his rights, credits, effects, and estate of every description. The assignment embraced a claim of the assignor arising under a contract with the United States. It Opinion of the Court. was adjudged in the court of original jurisdiction that, as to that claim, the assignment was rendered invalid by the act of 1853. But the language of this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, was: "It is understood that the circuit court sustained the demurrer, under pressure of the strong language of the opinion in Spofford v. Kirk. We do not think, however, that the circumstances of the present case bring it within the one then under consideration, or the principles there laid down. That was a case of the transfer or assignment of a part of a disputed claim, then in controversy, and it was clearly within all the mischiefs designed to be remedied by the statute. Those mischiefs, as laid down in that opinion, and in the others referred to, are mainly two: 1. The danger that the rights of the government might be embarrassed by having to deal with several persons instead of one, and by the introduction of a party who was a stranger to the original transaction; 2. That by a transfer of such a claim against the government to one or more persons not originally interested in it, the way might be conveniently opened to such improper influences in prosecuting the claim before the departments, the courts, or the Congress, as desperate cases, where the reward is contingent on success, so often suggest." "But these considerations," the court proceeded to say, as well as a careful examination of the statute, leave no doubt that its sole purpose was to protect the government, and not the parties to the assignment." 66 These cases show that the statutes in question are not to be interpreted according to the literal acceptation of the words used. They show that there may be assignments or transfers of claims against the government, such as, for instance, those passed upon in Erwin v. United States, and in Goodman v. Niblack, which are not forbidden by the statutes. In the case before us no question arises as to the transfer or assignment of a claim against the government. The question is whether payment to one who has been authorized to receive it, by the power of attorney executed before the allowance of the claim by the act of Congress was good as between the government and the claimant, where, at the time of payment, |