# The United States v. Patterson

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 16, 1813 · 11 U.S. 575

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/85040

## Case

- **Full name:** The United States v. Patterson
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 16, 1813
- **Citations:** 11 U.S. 575; 7 Cranch 575; 3 L. Ed. 444; 1813 U.S. LEXIS 455
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Duvall
- **Judges:** Duvall, Tom
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/85040

## Opinion text

The case was submitted without argument, and
Duvall, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court, as follows :
*576
This case has been considered in connexion With that against January & Patterson.
A suit was instituted on the bond dated 23d March, against Arthur & Patterson; and pending the suit Arthur died. The Defendant pleaded performance, which the Plaintiffs replied, alleging as a breach of tlie condition, that the stipulations therein contained .had ,i0^ been performed, and that the Defendant' was in arrear to'the Plaintiffs,the sum of g 16,1S1 15 1-2. &c. on w],ich issue was joined. **
The evidence, exhibited in the suit against January & Patterson, was produced in this case. On. the trial the Defendant took several exceptions, but not having aPPea*ec*t they are not open to examination.
The Plaintiffs also took an exception to the allowanee a credit to the Defendant. The supervisor had received the evidence of a number (if outstanding debts ^ue to Arthur, which he undertook to collect, and pro-raised to apply the proceeds to Arthur’s credit. Among was the bond, of Eeclor & Moore,. which was sued; at tlie trial of this suit, it appeared that the amount of that bond had actually coiné into the hands of the, agent of tlie person who had'been supervisor; hut that .office being extinct,”it was contended on the part of thfe United States, that the payment could not Be considered as a payment to government. The Court was of a different 0PÍn*on> ant* instructed the .jury accordingly ; to which opinion of the Court, an exception was taken, and a writ of error prosecuted.
# . This Court is of opinion, that the Circuit Court er-in the-decision thus made. .The reception of the outstanding debts by1 the supervisor, for tlie purpose of having suits commenced for the recovery of than, was an accommodation t<> the Defendant. who could not be justly entitled to credit until the money wps in the hands qt some public officer authorised to "receive it.
Judgment
reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/85040. Public record. Not legal advice.