The United States v. R. T. Hooe and Others
Supreme Court of the United States
This was a writ of error to a decree of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting as a court of Chancery. The case was, that colonel Fitzgerald in the year 1794 was appointed collector of the customs for the port of Alexandria, and gave bond to the United States in the penalty of 10,000 dollars, with R. T. Hooe as his surety, for the faithful performance of the duties of the office.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error to a decree of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting as a court of Chancery. The case was, that colonel Fitzgerald in the year 1794 was appointed collector of the customs for the port of Alexandria, and gave bond to the United States in the penalty of 10,000 dollars, with R. T. Hooe as his surety, for the faithful performance of the duties of the office. In consequence of misapplication of large sums of money by the chief clerk, who was entrusted with almost the whole management of the business, col. Fitzgerald became deficient in his accounts with…
1Opinion of the Court
The attorney general *
opened the cause on the part of the United States, and was going on to shew that the deed was fraudulent, as to creditors, upon general principles of law, (a ground not taken in the court below) when he was stopped by an enquiry from the court, whether there was any provision in the act concerning the district of Columbia, by which the case was taken out of the operation of the nineteenth section of the judiciary act of 1789, which required a statement of the facts to accompany the record. Upon recurring to the act of congress, 27th February 1801, concerning the district…
2Cited by5 opinions
- STANTON v. Embrey, AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Thompson v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Thompson v. RiggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Putnam v. OsgoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1872
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United States ex rel. SmootCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1924