United States v. Potter
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
[This is an action on an official bond dated August 4, 1871, by Potter, as disbursing agent of the United States at Pembina. He retired from the office June 30, 1874. The principal item in controversy was a charge against Potter of $1,500, a draft for which sum was transmitted to him May 17, 1871, to cover disbursements for the quarter ending June 30, 1871, the facts concerning which sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Read the full summary
[This is an action on an official bond dated August 4, 1871, by Potter, as disbursing agent of the United States at Pembina. He retired from the office June 30, 1874. The principal item in controversy was a charge against Potter of $1,500, a draft for which sum was transmitted to him May 17, 1871, to cover disbursements for the quarter ending June 30, 1871, the facts concerning which sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. It was contended on the part of the defendant, Mcllrath, -who was surety on Potter’s bond, that he is not liable for this sum, on the grounds that there is no…
1Opinion of the Court
NELSON, District Judge.
Tne head of a department of the government is authorized in the administration of the duties of the office to employ agents and determine when an exigency arises demanding their employment. The law of 1854 (Rev. St. § 3614) recognizes the right and provides for a bond to be given by the agent for the faithful discharge of his duties. The act of March 3, 1849 (Rev. St. § 3617), required payment of all moneys received by Potter into the treasury “without abatement or reduction,” and it became a necessity to appoint him a disbursing agent. He was appointed an agent for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Indseth v. PierceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1879