Imágenes de páginas

United States ; 21 and a citizen of Porto Rico.22 A foreign government does not deny the right of an American to sue it by requiring him to give security for costs.23 The Court of Claims has jurisdiction of an action to which a State is a party plaintiff ;

24 but not of a suit to which a State is a necessary party defendant.25

$ 673a. Right of assignees to sue. The Revised Statutes provide as follows: “All transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim or of any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void unless they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof. Such transfers, assignments, and powers of attorney must recite the warrant for payment, and must be acknowledged by the person making them, before an officer having authority to take acknowledgment of deeds, and shall be certified by the officer; and it must appear by the certificate that the officer, at the time of the acknowledgment, read and fully explained the transfer, assignment, or warrant of attorney to the person acknowledging the same.1 “The object of Congress by this section was to pro


21 Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. v. U. S., 39 Ct. Cl. 225; S. C., 40 Ct. Cl. 33.

22 Basso's Case, 40 Ct. Cl. 202. 23 Brown v. U. S., 5 Ct. Cl. 571.

24 U. S. v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32, 31 L. ed. 69; S. C., 127 U. S. 182, 32 L. ed. 66.

25 Milwaukee R. R. Canal Co. v. U. S., 1 Ct. Cl. 187.

See supra, $ 105.

$ 673a. iU. S. R. S., $ 3477 ; Emmons v. United States, 189 Fed. 414. The statute applies to agreements giving liens upon warrants that are not issued. Nutt v. Knut,

200 U. S. 12; Calhoun v. Massie, $ 53 U. S. 170. An assignment not authorized by the statute is invalid as regards creditors of a bankrupt. National Bank of Com

v. Downie, 218 U. S. 345. And also it has been held, between the assignor and the assignee. Manhattan Commercial (o. v. Paul, 216 N. Y. 487. But where the Government paid into the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia the amount awarded upon a claim; this Court was given jurisdietion to determine the rights of the parties and to award the attorneys relief.

tect the Government, and not the claimant, and prevent fraud


The Supreme Court of the United States then said: "As to the effect of $ 3477 Rev. Stat., it has been several times declared by this court that the statute was intended solely for the protection of the Government and its officers during the adjustment of claims, and that, after allowances, the protection may be invoked or waived, as they in their judgment deem proper." Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, 560; Bailey v. U. S., 109 U. S. 432, 439; Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S., 567, 576; Freedman's Saving Co. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 306; Price v. Forrect, 173 U. S. 410, 423. But see Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12, 20. It does not invalidate contracts with attorneys for the prosecution of claims against the United States upon contingent fees.

Such contracts have been enforced when the compensation

one-twentieth, Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415, 14 L. ed. 753; one-tenth, Wright v. Tebbitts, 91 U. S. 252, 23 L. ed. 320; one-fifteenth per cent., McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285; one-fifth, Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. ed. 983; and one-half, Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 28 L. ed. 64. See also Davis V. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 241, 30 L.R.A. 743; Bayard v. McLane, 3 Harr. (Del.) 139; Ryan v. Martin, 16 Wis. 57; s. C., 18 Wis. 672; Stanton v. Haskin, 1 MacA. 558, 562; Voorhees v. Dorr, 51 Barb. 580. Such contracts, unless forbidden by a special statute, may be enforced by an action against the party to whom the payment is made. Ibid. ; York v. Conde, 147 N. Y. 486. But see Ball v. Halsell, 161 U. S. 772,

40 L. ed. 622; Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. ed. 623.

Where after attorneys have performed substantial services under such an agreement they are discharged without their consent, they may be allowed compensation equal to that provided by the contract, McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285. A statute limiting the amount of fees collectible by attorneys in respect to claims against the Government is valid. Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U. S. 171; Newman v. Moyers, 253 U. S. 782. The statute does not apply to assignments by operation of the law to assignees in bankruptcy, Erwin v. U. S., 97 U. S. 392, 24 L. ed. 1065; to assignees in insolvency, even under voluntary assignments, Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556, 26 L. ed. 229; Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 303, 36 L. ed. 981; nor to receivers appointed by State Courts, Price v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410, 43 L. ed. 410; nor to persons who have a right of subrogation, Am. Tobacco Co. v. U. S., 32 Ct. Cl. 207; Schwarz v. U. S., 35 Ct. Cl. 303. All of these may sue the United States in their own name. Ibid. But the purchaser of a claim at a judicial sale under a mortgage cannot. St. Paul & D. R. Co. v. U. S., 112 U. S. 733, 28 L. ed. 861. Otherwise it was held of a sale by an assignee in bankruptcy. McKay v. U. S., 27 Ct. Cl. 422.

The statute does not enable the original claimant to recover of the United States a sum once paid hy the Government to his attorney in fact under a power of attorney made before the allowance of the claim and the issue of the warrant, no


notice of the revocation of which has been given to the United States. Bailey v. U. S., 109 U. S. 432, 27 L. ed. 988; Buffalo B. R. Co. v. U. S., 16 Ct. Cl. 238. Nor does it invalidate a contract of partnership in furnishing supplies to the United States, nor a promise by one party to another that he will pay him a sum, already due under the articles of co-partnership, out of money to be received from the Government for such supplies. Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, 29 L. ed. 940. Nor does it affect the right of a mortgagee of land or of a pledgee of rents to recover from the mortgagor or pledgor the rents paid by the United States. Freedmen's S. & Tr. Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U. S. 494, 32 L. ed. 163. It has been held that the statute does not apply to the claim of a witness against a marsbal for witness fees paid to the marshal and withheld by him, Bollin v. Blythe, 46 Fed. 181, 183; Wallace v. Douglas, 116 N. C. 659; but that it applies to claims against a collector for duties illegally collected, Hager v. Swayne, 149 U. S. 242, 37 L. ed. 719. It seems that the statute does not invalidate the assignment of a judgment against the United States or against collectors, Burke v. Davis, 63 Fed. 456, 458, 12 A. G. Op. 216; nor does it invalidate an assignment made before the United States assumed the indebtedness, U. S. v. Griswold, 30 Fed. 604; S. C., 12 Sawyer, 398. Neither does it apply to claims against funds received from foreign governments by the State Department for distribution among citizens of the United States. Hubbell v. U. S., 15 Ct. Cl. 546,

592. Otherwise the statute applies to every claim against the United States. U. S. v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407, 24 L. ed. 503; McKnight v. U. S., 98 U. S. 179, 25 L. ed. 115; St. Paul & D. R. Co. v. U. S., 112 U. S. 733, 28 L. ed. 861; Hager v. Swayne, 149 U. S. 242, 247, 37 L. ed. 719, 721; Ball v. Halsell, 161 U. S. 72, 79, 40 L. ed. 622, 624. No assignee as such can maintain a suit against the United States in any court. Ibid. It was held that a negotiable draft by the claimant upon his attorneys, payable out of the proceeds of the claim, which was accepted by the attorneys before collection and transferred to a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, gave him no right to enjoin the acceptors from surrendering or the drawer from receiving the warrant after it had been issued to the acceptors. Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484, 24 L. ed. 1032. No action will lie by an attorney against the head of a Department for informing claimants that they were under no legal obligation to respect an assignment invalidated by the statute. Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 40 L. ed. 780.

It seems that an injunction might be granted restraining the Secretary of the Treasury from paying a fund received by the United States from a foreign government for distribution when the United States makes no claim against the fund. Ridgway v. Hays, 5 Cranch, C. C. 23. But an injunction against the Secretary of the Treasury was denied to an attorney who claimed under an signment of part of an award in favor of an Indian. McElrath v.


[ocr errors]

upon the Treasury. Assignments not made in conformity with this statute are void against the trustee in bankruptcy of the assignor."'3

“No contract or order, or any interest therein, shall be transferred by the party to whom such contract or order is given to any other party, and any such transfer shall cause the annulment of the contract or order transferred, so far as the United States are concerned. All rights of action, however, for any breach of such contract by the contracting parties are reserved to the United States." 4

United States." 4 This prevents a suit by the assignee in his own name against the United States.5 An assignee for creditors may sue in the name of his assignor.6

$ 673b. Petitions and claims. “Suits shall be commenced by petition, verified in the manner provided by law, and filed in

McIntosh, 1 H. & H. 348. Cf. Trist v. Child, 21 Wall. 441, 22 L. ed. 623; National Bank of Commerce v. Downie, 218 U. S. 345, affirming C.C.A., 161 Fed. 839; Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. First Nat. Bank, C.C.A., 185 Fed. 373.

2 Price v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410, 423, 43 L. ed. 749, 753, per Harlan, J., and cases cited by him.

3 Ibid. Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Downie, 218 U. S. 345.

4 U. S. R. S., 8 3737. See Burck v. Taylor, 152 U. S. 634, 647, 38 L. ed. 578, 583; Wheeler's Case, 5 Ct. Cl. 504; Bailey v. U. S., 15 Ct. Cl. 490; Dougherty v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cl. 496; Francis' Case, 11 Ct. C. 638; Mills v. U. S., 19 Ct. Cl. 79; McCord's Case, 9 Ct. Cl. 155; Mason's Case, 14 Ct. Cl. 59; Bowe v. U. S., 42 Fed. 761, 782; Coates v. U. S., 53 Fed. 989, 991.

5 U. S. v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407, 24 L. ed. 503; s. C., sub nom. Gillis v. U. S., 12 Ct. Cl. 704. See also authorities cited supra, Judge Deady held, in the Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, that an assignee may sue the United States in his own name in a District or

Circuit Court. Emmons v. U. S., 48 Fed. 43. Contra, Forehand v. U. S., 23 Ct. Cl. 477, 482.

6 Morgan v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 319. Before the Bowman Act it was held when the suit was brought in the name of the assignor for the use of his assignee, the assignor must verify the petition, or the assignee must file a warrant of attorney or prove the assignment. Silverhill v. U. S., 5 Ct. Cl. 610; Crowell v. U. S., 6 Ct, Cl. 23. If the assignor died pendente lite, a verification by his executor was sufficient. Pullen v. U. S., 7 Ct. Cl. 507. When the assignor and assignee joined as coclaimants, the assignor verifying the petition which alleged that the suit was for the assignee, there was no need of proving the assignment. Tebbetts v. U. S., 5 Ct. Cl. 607. The assignor may repudiate a void assignment and sue in his own name. Belt v. U. S., 15 Ct. Cl. 92. If the legal title to real property has been divested out of the owner and vested in a trustee authorized to collect past and future rents, the trustee may sue. Mills v. U. S., 19 Ct. CI. 79.

the office of the clerk, with one extra copy in print or typewriting. The clerk will note thereon the day of filing, and will cause a copy to be forwarded to the Attorney-General. Within twenty days thereafter, the claimant shall have printed thirty copies of such petition, retaining ten copies for the trial record and filing the remaining copies in the clerk's office, unless the court, on motion, for good and sufficient cause, waives the printing of the petition. Ten of said copies shall be for the Attorney-General.'1 “The claimant shall in all cases fully set forth in his petition the claim, the action thereon in Congress or by any of the departments, if such action has been had, what persons are owners thereof or interested therein, when and upon what consideration such persons became so interested; that no assignment or transfer of said claim or any part thereof or interest therein has been made, except as stated in the petition ; 2 that said claimant is justly entitled to the amount therein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and offsets; that the claimant and, where the claim has been assigned, the original and every prior owner thereof, if a citizen, has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and, whether a citizen or not, has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government, and that he believes the facts as stated in the said petition to be true. The said petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the claimant, his agent or attorney." 3

“In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any part of the military or naval forces of the United States for their use during the late Civil War, the petition shall aver that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did

$ 673b. 1 Ct. Cl. Rule 15.

2 The provision requiring a denial of any transfer of the claim does not apply to a transfer of the property out of which the claim arose. Morgan v. U. S., 14 Ct. Cl. 319.

3 Jud. Code, $ 159, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting U. S. R. S., $ 1072. "The said allegations as to true al

legiance and voluntary aiding, abetting, or giving encouragement to rebellion against the Government may be traversed by the Government, and if on the trial such issues shall he decided against the claimant, his petition shall be dismissed.” Ibid., $ 160.

« AnteriorContinuar »