Milnor v. Metz
41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 221, 10 L. Ed. 943 (1842).
[41 U.S. 221, 221]
ROBERT MILNOR, John Thompson, David Petrikin, and
Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treasury,
Complainants and Appellants,
GEORGE W. METZ, Appellee.
Claim on U. S. of insolvent for extra compensation as gauger, passes to assignee.
M. was discharged by the insolvent laws at Pennsylvania, after having made, according to the requirements of the law, an assignment of "all his estate, property, and effects, for the benefit of his creditors." After his discharge, he presented a petition to Congress for a compensation for extra services performed by him as United States gauger, before his petition for his discharge by the insol-
[10 L. Ed. 943]
vent law. As gauger, he had received the salary allowed by law but the services for which compensation was asked, were performed in addition to those of gauger, by regauging wines, which had become necessary by an Act of Congress reducing the duties charged upon them. Congress passed an act giving him a sum of money for those extra services. Held, that the assignee, under the insolvent laws, was entitled to receive from the Treasury of the United States, the amount so allowed.
ON appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
The appellants, Milnor and Thompson, were, during the years 1836 and 1837, United States gaugers for the port of Philadelphia, and as such received the full compensation allowed by law for that period. The duties having been rendered unusually laborious during the year, by the operation of the act of July 4th, 1836, reducing the duties on wines, under which they were required to regauge them, they appealed to Congress for extra compensation, to the amount of their full ordinary fees for these additional services.
Their memorial to Congress was presented in January, 1838; and in May, l840, an it was passed for their relief, by which the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars and twenty-three cents, being the amount of fees due to them for extra services as gaugers in the port of Philadelphia, after the passage of the Act of 4th July, 1836. reducing the duties on wines." George W. Metz made no claim before Congress, as the assignee to Robert Milnor.
In December, 1838. the appellant, Robert Milnor, applied at [41 U.S. 221, 222] Philadelphia for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania; and he was discharged in January, 1839, having executed the usual assignment for the benefit of his creditors. The appellee, George W. Metz, was duly qualified, and became the sole assignee.
After the Act of 1840 had passed, he applied at the Treasury Department, claiming the amount of the sum allowed by time same to Robert Milnor, being one half of the whole sum allowed: the other portion belonging to John Thompson.
This application was rejected; and this suit was instituted against the appellants. The court made a decree in favor of the appellee and the appellant, Robert Milnor, prosecuted this appeal.
The case was argued by Mr. Clement Coxe for the appellant, and by Mr. Bradley for the appellee.
Mr. Coxe contended:
1. That there was no purpose of Milnor to make the dedication claimed; and that his purpose, either way, is immaterial, as the insolvent law determines, without reference to it, what shall, and what shall not be included in the assignment.
3. That Congress had the right to model their relief at pleasure, and having granted it to Milnor, and not to his assignee, the latter is without relief by the present suit.
Although, in the schedule of property annexed to the petition of Robert Milnor, for the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, a claim on Congress is stated; this does not preclude the denial of the right of the assignee. it is the assignment which gives the right, if any was given. 3 Petersdorff, 486.
The act of Congress limits the salaries of gaugers to fifteen hundred dollars; and thus it is obvious that Milnor and Thompson had not a scintilla of legal right to further compensation from the United States. A claim of this king, being one for a gratuity, a benefaction cannot be passed under the assignment. It must be an actual interest, not an expectancy.
[41 U.S. 221, 223] If the assignee of Milnor had any right, it should have been presented to Congress. The power of the Legislature over the matter was complete. They have given the sum allowed to Robert Milnor; and the Circuit Court had no power to alter the donation.
The Secretary of he Treasury rejected the application of the assignee, and his decision was conclusive. Cited, Decatur v. Paulding, Secretary of the Navy, 14 Peters. 497.
Mr. Bradley, for the appellee, insisted that the claim by the appellee, as assignee of Robert Milnor, to the portion of the sum allowed by Congress to Robert Milnor, was valid, and that the claim had passed to the assignee under the assignment. The appellant claimed from Congress a compensation for extra services performed by him for the United States, before he took the benefit of the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, and the claim was allowed, There was a subsisting equity in favor of the petitioners. It was such a claim as, although a suit could not be instituted for its recovery in an action by the United States against the petitioners, would have been matter of set-off. The United States v. Tillotson, 7 Peters, 28; The United States v. Ripley, 7 Peters, 26.
The principle of law which may be derived from these cases is, that if any one shall perform services at the instance or request of the government of the United States, he is entitled to compensation. The right to compensation is property belonging to the party who has done the services, and as such belongs to the creditors of the insolvent.
The principles which are in question in this case were settled by the court in the case of Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Peters, 193.
Mr. Coxe denied that any legal claim existed on the United States for compensation. The salary of the gaugers was fixed by law, and whatever else they obtained was a gratuity. He cited 13 Peters, 409, as in all respects sustaining the claims of the appellant. The decision of the court in the case of Comegys v. [41 U.S. 221, 224] Vasse was given on the terms of the Spanish Treaty, which fully authorized the claim of the assignee.
Mr. Justice Catron delivered the opinion of the court:
The question in this cause is, whether a claim on the United States passed by an assignment made by Milnor, an insolvent, by force of an act of Pennsylvania, where the insolvent resided, and where the assignment took place.
[10 L. Ed. 944]
The application was made to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 24th December, 1838. According to the requirements of the Insolvent Act, there was presented: "A statement of all the estate, effects, and property of the petitioner, wheresoever situate, and of whatsoever kind" He says. "Your petitioner has no property of any kind except the following claim, viz.:
"A claim on the government of the United States for about three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dollars and fifty cents."
Know all men by these presents, that I, Robert Milnor, the above named petitioner, have assigned, transferred, and set over unto George W. Metz and Aaron Ross, their heirs and assigns, all my estate, property, and effects whatsoever, to, for, and upon the uses, trusts, and purposes designated by the Act entitled 'An Act relating to insolvent debtors," passed the sixteenth day of , A. D. one thousand eight hundred and thirty six.
Witness my hand and seal, this eleventh day of January, A. D. 1839.
Robert Milnor, [L. S.]
Ross refused to serve, and was discharged by the court, leaving Metz the sole trustee. On the same day Milnor was discharged.
On the 3d of May, 1840, Congress passed an act for the relief of Robert Milnor and John Thompson, ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to pay them two thousand seven hundred fifty-seven dollars and twenty-three cents: "being the amount [41 U.S. 221, 225] of fees equitably due to said M. and T. for extra services rendered by them as gaugers at the port of Philadelphia, after the Passage of the Act of the 4th of July, 1836, reducing the duties on wines, then in custom stores in said port, and commencing with the provisions of said act."
Several petitions had been presented on the subject: the first in February, 1838: the claim was pending before Congress when the assignment was made, and the insolvent discharged. He claimed the money as then due from the United States and the act of Congress admits the fact. Nevertheless, the answer insists: "That the remuneration was asked as a boon and respondent has understood and believes, was advocated, and granted as a gratuity."
Milnor applied to the treasury for one half of the money, as did Metz, the trustee. The department refused to examine the equities of the parties, or look beyond the act of Congress. Metz filed his bill, enjoining Milnor from receiving the money; and had a decree for a perpetual injunction.
The case relied on to sustain the assumption that the money awarded was a gratuity, is that of Emerson v. Hall, 13 Peters, 409.
It was this: Emerson, Chew, and Lorrain, libeled a slave ship, and caused her to be condemned, and claimed half of the proceeds of the ship and cargo, which was awarded to them below; but the decree was reversed by this court on the ground that Emerson, Chew, and Lorrain, as surveyor, collector, and naval officer of the port of New Orleans, had no right as captors; and that they stood on the footing of an officer who made a military seizure. Emerson died; and in 1831 Congress passed an act bestowing on his legal representatives, and on Chew and Lorrain, the one half of the condemnation money.
Ball, as a creditor of Emerson, filed his petition in the Probate Court at New Orleans, against Byrne, the curator of the heirs of Emerson, for the payment of his debt out of the moneys received under the act of Congress. The Probate Court. and the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on appeal gave judgment for Ball; and on [41 U.S. 221, 226] writ of error prosecuted to this court, the judgment was reversed on the ground, that the act of Congress gave the money to Emerson's heirs as a gratuity, because of the meritorious conduct of their father. Say the court: "He acted under no law, nor by virtue of any authority; his acts imposed no obligation, either in law or equity, on the government. Had he been sued for a debt due to it, he could not have set up these services, either as an equitable or legal set-off." They are declared to be like those, where an individual, by timely exertion, saves the public property from destruction by fire; or where a pension is given to heirs for military services of the ancestor.
The services performed by Milnor were at the instance of the government, and necessary to execute the Act of 1826. But being a second measurement, no express law or regulation of the Treasury Department fixed the fees; and the demand was rejected by the accounting officers, because they had no discretion to go beyond the law, or an express regulation founded on it. The equity of the claim was free from doubt. The gaugers only received fees for specific services, actually performed, and could not receive double compensation: and in this respect the equity was more prominent than in M'Daniels case, 7 Peters. 1. M'Daniel was a regular cleric in the Navy Department. and received a salary. He was ordered by his superiors to perform, the extra duties of paying, (1) the navy pensioners; (2) the privateer pensioners; and, (3) to act as agent for Navy disbursements. So that all this time may have been devoted to his extra service: and none to the regular office duties of clerk. Because of his regular salary, the accounting officer refused to allow additional compensation. To cover his claim for this, M'Daniel had retained nine hundred and eighty dollars, and was sued for it by the United States. The defendant's claim was allowed as an equitable set-off.
The case of Fillebrown, 7 Peters, 50, is to the same effect. These cases have been constantly followed, where services had been performed at the instance of the government for which, by the strict rules of accounting, no credit could be given by the treasury.
The ground that the government was the debtor, and the claim rested on its discretion; or in other words, that it was as uncertain as the [41 U.S. 221, 227] pleasure of Congress; and until the Act of 1840 was passed, no claim existed against the United States, which could be ju-
[10 L. Ed. 945]
dicially recognized as "property or effects," of the insolvent, we think is decided to the contrary by this court in Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Peters, 196.
Vasse assigned under the bankrupt law of 1800. He had been an underwriter on policies of insurance on vessels seized and condemned by the government of Spain. The owners had abandoned for a total loss, which the insurer had paid; and was the successor to the rights of the assured. The sentences of the Spanish prize courts were conclusive as to the right to the things condemned; and no claim existed on the part of the insurer that did not depend on the discretion and pleasure of the Spanish government. The equity was as remote, to say the least of it, in that case as in the one before us. By the Treaty of 1819, Spain stipulated with this government to pay five millions in full discharge of the unlawful seizures; leaving the United States to distribute the indemnity. Vasse had awarded to him eight thousand eight hundred and forty-six dollars. Comegys was the surviving assignee of the bankrupt. Vasse instituted suit against him, to try the right to the money. This court held, that although the illegal sentences of the Spanish prize courts were irreversible, the party had not lost all right to justice, or claim, upon principles of international law to remuneration; that he had a right both to the justice of his own and the foreign sovereign; and that this right passed by the general assignment of the bankrupt.
The treaty in that case (as the act of Congress in this), operated on a pre-existing claim on a government. It follows, if the doctrine of donation did not apply in that case, neither can it in this.
Had a similar claim on the part of Milnor existed against an individual instead of the government, then there can be no doubt he could have recovered by suit; or it would have been the subject of set-off; or could have been assigned. So it would have passed to his administrator in case of death. As the government was equally bound to do its debtor justice, in a different mode, with an individual, we think no sound distinction exists in the two cases; and, therefore, order the decree to be affirmed.
[10 L. Ed. 946]