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.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0127 and id is 1 raw text is: JANUARY TERM 1831.
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFFS IN E]IRoR vs. THOMAS
TINGEY, DEFENDANT IN.ERROR.
There is no statute of the United States expressly defining the diuties of pur-
sers in the navy. What those duties are, except so far as they are incidentally
disclosed in public laws, cannot be judicially known to this court. If they are
regulated by the usage and customs of the navy, or by the official orders of the
navy department, they properly constitute matters of averment, and should be
spread upon the pleadings.
A bond, voluntarily given to the United States and not prescribed by law, is a
valid instrument upon the parties to it, in point of law. The United States
have in their political capacity a right to enter into a contract, or to take a bond
in cases not previously provided by law. It is an incident to the general right
of sovereignty; and the United States being a body politic, may, within the
sphere of the constitutional powers confided to it, and through the instrumen-
tality of the proper department to which those powers are confided, enter into
contracts not prohibited by law, and appropriate to the just exercise of those
powers. To adopt a different principle would be to deny the ordinary rights
of sovereignty, not merely to the general government, but even to the state
governments, within the proper sphere of their own powers; unless brought
into operation by express legislation. A doctrine to such an extent is not
known to this court, as ever having been sanctioned by any judicial tribunal.
A voluntary bond taken by authority of the'proper officers of the treasury depart-
ment to whom the disbursement of public money is entrusted, to secure the
fidelity in official duties of a receiver or an agent for disbursing of public mo-
neys, is a binding contract between him and his sureties, and the United States;
although such bond miy not be prescribed or required by any positive law.
The right to take'such a bond is an incident to the duties belonging to such a
department, and the United States being authorized in a political capacity to
take It, there is no objection' to Its validity in a moral or a legal sense.
Where the United States instituted an action for The recovery of a sum of money
on a bond- given with sureties by a purser in the navy, and the defendants, in
substance, pleaded that the bond, with the condition thereto, was variant from
that prescribed by law, and was under colour of office extorted ficom the obli.
gor and his sureties contrary to the statute, by the then secretazy of the navy,
as the condition of the purser's remaining in office and receiving its emolu-
ments ; and the United States demurred to this plea; it was held that the plea
constituted a good bar to the action.
No officer of the government has a right by colour of his office to require from
any subordinate officer as a condition of his holding his office, that he should
execute a bond with a condition differcat from that prescribed by law. That
would be, not to execute, but to supersede the requisites of the law. If would
be very different Where such a bond was, by mistake or otherwise, voluntarily
substituted by the parties for the statute bond, without any coercion or extor-
lion by colour of office.
ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for
the county of Washington.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0127&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)