Supreme Court of United States.
*185 Mr. Enoch Totten for McKnight.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith for the United States.
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.
These are cross-appeals in the same case. The sum of $30,675.68 was awarded by the proper accounting officers to McKnight & Richardson, as assignees of Simeon Hart, a government contractor, for furnishing army supplies. The assignment was made by parol, and the delivery to the assignees of a receipt signed by Hart, with a blank for the amount that might be paid by the United States, to be filled in accordingly. Upon the allowance of the claim as stated a treasury warrant was issued to McKnight & Richardson for $21,675.68. The remaining $9,000 was retained in the treasury "on account of a debt due the United States from Simeon Hart, as surety on a bond given by Lieut.-Col. Jno. B. Grayson, Com. of Subs., to await the final settlement of said Grayson's accounts." This reservation of the $9,000 was made by order of the Second Comptroller and the Secretary of the Treasury. McKnight & Richardson sued in the Court of Claims to recover this sum. The United States thereupon set up a counter-claim, and insisted upon their right to recover back the $21,675.68 which had been paid already to the petitioners.
The Court of Claims adjudged against both parties, and both appealed to this court.
The claim of the United States cannot be sustained. According to the settled usages and practice of the department, the evidence in the record was sufficient to warrant the allowance of the amount found due to Hart. Lieut.-Col. Grayson, as a commissary of subsistence, was charged with the duty of receiving and inspecting the articles delivered, and of certifying the quantities and the prices to be paid. The voucher which he gave is explicit upon these points, and presupposes full knowledge on his part of what is set forth. His fidelity in the discharge of this duty was secured by his honor as a soldier, his commission, and his bond. It does not appear that any fraud was ever suspected, or that there is the slightest ground for such an imputation. It is true the assignment was contrary to law, and therefore a nullity, but there was nothing contrary *186 to good morals or conscience in the payment or receipt of the money. The facts were all known. There was no indirection, concealment, or improper purpose on either side. Although the petitioners had no claim against the United States, they had a valid claim against Hart. The money was received in payment of his debt, and discharged it to that extent. He is estopped by his receipt from setting up any claim against the government. It does not appear that he has ever complained. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that if the controversy were between private parties, there could be no recovery. 1 Story, Contracts, sect. 541.
With a few exceptions, growing out of considerations of public policy, the rules of law which apply to the government and to individuals are the same. There is not one law for the former and another for the latter.
There are also fatal objections to the case of the petitioners.
The assignment, as we have already said, was wholly void. Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U.S. 484. It conferred no right that the United States was bound to regard. The payment of a part was not a waiver of this objection as to the residue. An agreement to that effect, express or implied, looking to the future, would have been without validity. There could have been no consideration for it, and no one had authority to make it. The statute is conclusive upon the subject. In the view of the law, the claim is as if the facts of which it is predicated were not.
It was also competent for the United States to set off the amount due to Hart under his contract, so far as was necessary to meet his liability as surety on the bond of Grayson, and the Court of Claims was bound to adjudge accordingly. Rev. Stat. 1059; Gratiot v. United States, 15 Pet. 336.
Judgment affirmed.
