United States v. Laub (37 U.S. 1)

Page 2 IN error from the circuit court of the United States of the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington.

The United States instituted two actions of assumpsit against the defendant, to recover the balances stated to be due to the United States, on transcripts regularly certified by the treasury department. The first account was with the defendant, as 'agent for paying the contingent expenses of the office of the secretary of the treasury;' and charges a balance due to the United States, and those warrants drawn by the secretary of the treasury in favour of the defendant, amounting, together, to four thousand dollars. It credits a payment of two hundred and forty-one dollars and fifty-eight cents, paid on the 22d July, 1833, leaving a balance due to the United States, on the 14th November, 1833, of three thousand seven hundred and seventy-six dollars and fifty-eight cents. The other account is against the defendant as 'superintendent of the south-east executive building, in relation to the compensation of superintendent, and watchman of said building;' and after charging a warrant of four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and crediting one hundred and fourteen dollars and ninety-seven cents, paid July 22d 1833, claims a balance of three hundred and ten dollars and three cents. The whole sum claimed to be due to the United States, on the two transcripts, was four thousand and eighty-six dollars and fifty-one cents. In the other action, the United States claimed seven thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents. This account is for a treasury warrant for two thousand dollars, and for five thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents, for balances due by the defendant as 'superintendent of the south-east executive building,' in relation to contingent expenses of the said building, to alterations and improvements thereof, and to enclosing the grounds attached thereto; and also as 'agent for expenditures in relation to insolvent debtors,' and in relation to manufactures.

The defendant pleaded non assumpsit to both actions, and the cases were tried together, in the circuit court; the jury found verdicts for the defendant.

Three bills of exception, entirely similar, were taken in each case, by the plaintiffs, and judgment being given for the defendant, the plaintiffs prosecuted this writ of error. The material facts of the case, in the bills of exception, are stated in the opinion of the court.

The case was argued by Mr. Butler, the attorney general, and by Coxe, for the defendant.

Mr. Justice THOMPSON delivered the opinion of the Court.