United States v. Wright
District Court, D. New Jersey
An action of debt upon a postmaster’s bond to recover from the sureties the amount due the government upon the defalcation of the principal. Parties waived a jury and submitted a statement of facts, upon which the court was to find a verdict for the plaintiff or defendants according to the law in the case. The facts agreed to were substantially .and in brief these: Mr. Wright was appointed postmaster of Princeton March, 1870, and duly executed an official bond, with Messrs.
Read the full summary
An action of debt upon a postmaster’s bond to recover from the sureties the amount due the government upon the defalcation of the principal. Parties waived a jury and submitted a statement of facts, upon which the court was to find a verdict for the plaintiff or defendants according to the law in the case. The facts agreed to were substantially .and in brief these: Mr. Wright was appointed postmaster of Princeton March, 1870, and duly executed an official bond, with Messrs. Duryea, Cumming, Jewell and Bailey as sureties, upon which bond this suit is brought; that before July, 1872, Wright’s…
1Opinion of the Court
NIXON, District Judge.
1. The first ground taken by the counsel of the defendants to bar the right of recovery is that the extension of time for paying over moneys due and owing to the United States, granted to the postmaster by the special agent and without notice to the sureties, discharges them. It is a sufficient reply to this to say that the statement of facts agreed upon by the parties furnishes no support to the proposition that any extension of time for payment was granted. On the contrary, there seems to have been a commendable vigilance on the part of the government officers in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1832