tlNITED STATES UNITED STATES
MORGAN et al. 1 June 26, 1888.)
MINGLING FUNDS UNAU-
(Oircuit Court, S. D. New York.
BONDS-OFFlCIAL BONDS-DISBURSING OFFICERS TaORIZED TRANSFER-LIABILITY OF SURETY.
A fed,eral officer, the chief of the bureau of accounts in the department of state, gave bond for the faithful discharge of his duties, which included the disbursing of certain appropriations. He also received certain moneys from passport fees and the sale of United States Statutes, which were independent transactions, for which no bond was required. At the end ofa month he drew his draft on the appropriations fund. to cover a in the passport fund. Held, in an action, after his death, against his sureties on the bond, that such drfl,ft was\lnauthorized. illegal. and void; and, no act!lal transfer of moqey appearing, ,defendants bad a right to ,have the draft CI;tJ)celed, and the accounts readjusted, which would shOw no deficit in the apPropriatitlris account. ' ...
Errol' to District Court, S. D. New York. ,In the trial of this case in the district court, which waS brought against the suretieS! on Morgan's bond, after his death, it appeared that Motgan in his life-time drew on the appropriations account to pay a shortage to the passport uccount, and, after the proper debit and credit of the draft, Jeft'a .deficit to the former account. It appeared also that no actui.tl transfer of money in the treasury had taken place. The district COt1tt held that 'the transactions were independent; that defendants were 'liable fodhe apparent deficiency in the appropriations account; thaHhe dmfi therebnwas illegal a:ndvoid; and defendants had -a right to haveJj; canceled, and the accounts reformed. The government brings error."" Stephen A. Walker, U. S. Atty., and Abram J. Rose, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the United States, plaintiff in error. Thomas Osborn. for defendants in error.
LACOMBE, J. This action is brought to recover on II. surety bond conditioned for "the faithful discharge of his duties" by Robert C. Morgan, as chief of the bureau of accolllits in the- department of state. Defendants had judgment in the district court, and the plaintiff has taken a writofett6r. . Morgan while holding received mOriey froro two difThere was; frotU time to time, placed to his credit with the treasurer or assistant treasurer, and subject to his draft, certain funds appropriated by congress to certain specified objects, connected with, disdepartment of state for the contingent expenses ,of foreign missions,-consulates, and similar purposes. The receipt and disbUfsementQf'these moneys 'Were within the duties wh,ose faithfUl'discharge the bond sued on was given to secure. He also ,receiveel from time to time certain passport fees, and moneys for ,the sale of theUJlltEld StatesStatutes,'whicb he was required by law to cover into the treasury. in connection with thesefees andlIl,9neyll
Affirming 28 Fed. Rep. 48.
were not sureties; nor, indeed, was any bond required. For his honesty in that regard the United States were their own insurers. As to the details of the embezzlement, which is the cause of this action, evidence) natur!J.lly enough,is not very specific. It may fairly be inferred, however, that Morgan's method of proceeding was as follows: He received from time to time bank-bills) trel¥lury notes, or coin in payment of passport fees, or for the sale of Statutes. These bills, notes, and coin he appropriated to his own usej -and when the month came to an end he was a defaulter to the governmf;lnt to the amoup.t of the moneys so received. Thereupon he drew ILdraft against his account as disbursing clerkdor an amount equal to his defalcationsdriring the month, and passed it over to the treasurer or assistant treasurer, with the request that it be covered into the treasury as the amount received from passports during the Thereupon the amount of these drafts was charged to the disbursement account, and credited to the passport-fee account. The cases of U. S. v. Janoory,17 Cranch) 572j U. S. v. Eckford, 1 How. 250, andJone,s v. U. 8.)7 How. 681, referred to in the opinion of the learned court below, seem to be controlling of this case. If there were .another set of bondsmen) who guarantied Morgan's faithful service in the receipt and disposition of passport fees and moneys for the sale of Statutes) the loss which the United States have sustained would be, under .these decisions). recoverable. from them) and not from the defendants. The situation is certainly not changed by the circumstance that the government stands as its own security for Morgan)s acts in regard to the .!ll0neys he embezzled. The judgment is affirmed <1n the opinion of the district judge.
UNITED STATES V. SMITH
(Oircuit Oourt, B. D. Mi88ouri. June 4, lASS.) 1.
INDIANS -INDJA}i AGENTS - AOTION ON BOND - EVIDENCE - TRANSCRIPT 011' TREASURY DEPARTMENT-PM:i'ERTY RECEIVED-REV. ST. U. S. § 886.
In an action on the bond <if a special Indian agent, a treasury traJiscript containing a charge "for go"ernment property received at the W. agency, and not properly accounted for." but not showing of what the property consisted,' nor how the value was ascertained. is insufficient to 'warrant a judg· ment for the value of such property, and is not aided by a paper attached thereto describing the property by items, apparently compiled from the original retnnssnd other document\! on file; such paper no.t being admissible under Rev. St. U. S. 886. providing for the admission in evidence of copies .of books and'papers In the treasury department.
fl... SAME-RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMEj!iTS.
Under Rev. 8t. U. 8. !:i 886, providing for the admission in evidence of coppapers on file in the treasury department, a treasurv tranies of books script, certified as therein' provided, is competent, in au action on the bond of a special Indian agent, to show what public moneys defendant received, and what disbursements made by him were approved.