About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

United States, Plaintiff in Error v. Joseph Nourse 8 (1835)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0116 and id is 1 raw text is: 8 SUPREME COURT. UNITED STATESr, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR V JOSEPH NOURSE. The treasury department of the United States, on the 14th of July 1829, issued a warrant of distress directed to the marshal of the District of Columbia, com- manding him to levy and collect, by distress and sale of his goods and chat- tels, a sum of money alleged to be due to the United States, on a treasury transcript, by Joseph Nourse,late register of the treasury. This warrant was issued in pursuance of the 3d and 4th sections of the act of May 15th 1820, providing for the better orgamzation of the treasury department. Under the provisions of the 4th section of the act, Mr Nourse obtained an injunc- tion from the chiefjustice of the District of Columbia to stay all further pro- ceedings on the said warrant. The bill presented by Mr Nourse to the chief justice of the District of Columbia asserted that the United States were indebted to him for compensation for extra services he had rendered to the United States; in a sum exceeding the amount claimed by the United States: which claim was denied in the answer filed by the district attorney of the United States, both as to the legality and the amount of the claim. The court determined that Mr Joseph Nourse was entitled to compensation for the extra services he had rendered to the government, in the agencies mentioned in the bill; and appointed auditors to ascertain the value of his services and compensation, and to report thereon without delay. The report of the auditors allowed to the complainant a commission of two and a half per cent, on the sum of 943,308 dollars and 83 cents, disbursedby him in the several agencies in which he had been employed, leaving a balance due to him from the United States. The report was confirmed, and the in- junction made perpetual. The United States then instituted their suit against Joseph Nourse in the circuit court for the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington, on an account authenticated according to law, by the proper accounting offi- cers, being the same account, and claiming the same amount as in the warrant of distress, and on which the decree of the chiefjustice was pro- nounced. It was agreed that the defendant should have the benefit of the proceedings in that case, as if the same had been pleaded and given in evi- dence. The circuit court adjudged the proceedings in the former action a bar to this action. By the Court. It is a rule to which no exceptionis recollected, that the judg- ment of a court of competent jurisdiction, while unreversed, concludes the subject matter as between the same parties. They cannot again bring it into litigation. An execution is the end of the law. It gives the successful party the fruits of his judgment, and the distress warrant is a most effective execution. It may act on the body and estate of the individual against whom it is directed. It would excite some surprise if, in a government of laws and of principle, furnished with a department whose appropriate duty is to decide questions of right, not only between individuals, but between the government and individuals, a ministerial officer might, at his discretion, issue this powerful

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most