United States v. Case
District Court, N.D. New York
' At Law. Action by the United States against Riley W. Case on his bond as postmaster, to recover an alleged deficit in his accounts. It wás tried at the term of this court held at Rochester, May 12, 1891. The plaintiff to prove its case depended solely upon statements of account made by the officials’ of the post-office department, and certified as required by law.
Read the full summary
' At Law. Action by the United States against Riley W. Case on his bond as postmaster, to recover an alleged deficit in his accounts. It wás tried at the term of this court held at Rochester, May 12, 1891. The plaintiff to prove its case depended solely upon statements of account made by the officials’ of the post-office department, and certified as required by law. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that these statements were sufficient to establish liability under sections 886 and 889 of the Revised Statutes, and the act of June 17, 1878, (20 St. át Large, pp. 140, 141,) which…
1Opinion of the Court
Coxe, District Judge.
The accounts offered in evidence by the plaintiff bring the defendants into debt, because the officials of the post-office department have charged the defendants in gross with “commissions ille7 gaily claimed” and .“property illegally retained,”withouta word of proof, so far as the accounts show, to sustain the charges. These officials haye tried the question at issue between the department and the postmaster, found him guilty of malfeasance, assessed the damages against him and certified their findings. The evidence, if there was any, on which these findings are based,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cox and Dick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- United States v. BufordSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Bruce v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- United States v. Gabriel F. IrvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- Hoyt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Laffan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1903