Legal Opinion

United States v. Clark

U.S. Circuit Court for New York

Decided October 15, 1826PublishedCited by 12 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, to recover of the defendant [Daniel R. Clark! certain funds of Gilbert Stuart, a debtor of the United States, which had come to the hands óf the defendant; the United States claiming the funds by virtue of the priority given by the fifth section of the act of March 3. 1797. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, to recover of the defendant [Daniel R. Clark! certain funds of Gilbert Stuart, a debtor of the United States, which had come to the hands óf the defendant; the United States claiming the funds by virtue of the priority given by the fifth section of the act of March 3. 1797. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Gilbert Stuart and another became sureties oil a bond to the United States, with Joseph B. Stuart, the principal, a paymaster in the army, on the 10th of July. 1815. The bond was joint and several, in the penalty of $7,000,…

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON. Circuit Justice

(charging jury). Some observations have been made to you, in relation to the act of congress under which the United States claim a preference over other creditors of Gilbert Stuart, which are calculated to divert your attention from the matters proper to be submitted to you. It has been treated as a harsh and severe law, and one that is not entitled to the favourable consideration of the court. and jury. "With the policy or fitness of this law, we have no concern; it is a valid and constitutional law. and has been sc adjudged by the highest tribunal of the country. It…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Winner v. HoytWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Holt & Chambers v. BancroftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
  3. Davis v. PullenCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1922
  4. Mussey v. NoyesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
  5. Missouri-American Electric Co. v. Hamilton Brown Shoe Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1908

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API