Looney v. District of Columbia

Last updated
Looney v. District of Columbia
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 9,
Decided January 26, 1885
Full case nameLooney v. District of Columbia
Citations113 U.S. 258 ( more )
5 S. Ct. 463; 28 L. Ed. 974
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinions
MajorityGray, joined by unanimous

Looney v. District of Columbia, 113 U.S. 258 (1885), was a U.S. Supreme Court case testing whether a government contractor could sue for outstanding payment when those debts had already been sold off to other parties. The court ruled a street contractor could not both sell the debts at a discount as a security and also sue District of Columbia for the difference in what they were owed.

Contents

Background

The case involves a written contract made on September 11, 1872, between Dennis Looney and the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia wherein Looney agreed to provide materials and labor and to grade and gravel Fourteenth Street East between B Street South and Boundary, in the City of Washington; agreeing to punctually pay in cash the workmen employed by him with the Board of Public Works paying him the amount found to be due to him periodically according to the contract. Looney held to his part of the contract terms. After evaluating the work and the account statements during the progress and completion of the work, it was calculated Looney was due $27,364.75; but due to a mistake in the calculations of which neither party was aware, this amount was $500.00 too much, Looney received standard certificates by the Auditor of the Board of Public Works in different sums, some of which Looney assigned to others as payment to them. [1]

District of Columbia Department of Public Works

The District of Columbia Department of Public Works is an agency of the Government of the District of Columbia, the government of the District of Columbia, in the United States. The department oversees solid waste and recyclables collection, street cleaning, parking enforcement, and governmental vehicle procurement, maintenance, and fueling.

14th Street (Washington, D.C.) street in northwest and southwest quadrants of Washington, D.C., USA

14th Street NW/SW is a street in Northwest and Southwest quadrants of Washington, D.C., located 1.25 miles (2.01 km) west of the U.S. Capitol. It runs from the 14th Street Bridge north to Eastern Avenue.

Constitution Avenue is a major east-west street in the northwest and northeast quadrants of the city of Washington, D.C., in the United States. It was originally known as B Street, and its western section was greatly lengthened and widened between 1925 and 1933. It received its current name on February 26, 1931. Constitution Avenue's western half defines the northern border of the National Mall and extends from the United States Capitol to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. Its eastern half runs through the neighborhoods of Capitol Hill and Kingman Park before it terminates at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. A large number of federal departmental headquarters, memorials, and museums line Constitution Avenue's western segment.

According to the case syllabus:

A creditor who receives from his debtor a certificate in writing, not negotiable, of the amount of his debt, and sells the certificate to a third person for value less than its nominal amount, thereby authorizes the purchaser to receive the amount from the debtor, and cannot, after the debtor has paid it to the purchaser, maintain any action against the debtor.

Decision

Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court, which stated:

Horace Gray American judge

Horace Gray was an American jurist who served on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and then on the United States Supreme Court, where he frequently interpreted the Constitution in ways that increased the powers of Congress. Noted for possessing a sharp mind and an enthusiasm for legal research, he was also a staunch supporter of the authority of precedent throughout his career.

The nature and history of the auditor's certificates and of the so-called sewer certificates and other securities issued by the District of Columbia as well as the legislation of Congress related to them, were fully stated in opinions delivered by the Court of Claims in other cases, so for this case it was sufficient to observe that the sewer certificates and other interest-bearing securities of the district were negotiable instruments, and that the auditor's certificates were not negotiable, but were merely evidence of the debt of the district to the claimant under its contract with him.

If he had kept the auditor's certificates, he could have used them as evidence to recover the full amount of the debt from the district.

But the facts found show that he has so dealt with these certificates as to prevent him from maintaining this suit. The amount of some of the certificates he has been paid by the District in money. Others of the certificates he has sold and assigned for value, and thereby transferred the equitable title in them to the assignee, and authorized him to receive payment of their amount from the District, and the payment of that amount in full by the District to the assignee is a discharge of so much of its debt to the claimant. The remaining certificates he has exchanged with the District for an equal amount of its negotiable securities, payable on time, with interest, and he has since sold those securities for their value in the market. The District is liable to the purchaser either upon those securities themselves or upon the other bonds since taken by him instead of some of them, and cannot be also held liable to the original creditor for the same amount or any part thereof.

The conversation was found to have taken place between the treasurer of the District and the claimant before he sold the negotiable securities has no tendency to prove any authority or any intention of the treasurer to make a new or different contract in behalf of the District.

The judgment was affirmed.

See also

Related Research Articles

Chapter 11 is a chapter of Title 11, the United States Bankruptcy Code, which permits reorganization under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is available to every business, whether organized as a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, and to individuals, although it is most prominently used by corporate entities. In contrast, Chapter 7 governs the process of a liquidation bankruptcy, though liquidation can be done under Chapter 11 also; while Chapter 13 provides a reorganization process for the majority of private individuals.

In the United States, bankruptcy is governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

Guarantee is a legal term more comprehensive and of higher import than either warranty or "security". It most commonly designates a private transaction by means of which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, engages to be answerable for him. It may also designate a treaty through which claims, rights or possessions are secured. It is to be differentiated from the colloquial "personal guarantee" in that a Guarantee is a legal concept which produces an economic effect. A personal guarantee by contrast is often used to refer to a promise made by an individual which is supported by, or assured through, the word of the individual. In the same way, a guarantee produces a legal effect wherein one party affirms the promise of another by promising to themselves pay if default occurs.

A warrant of execution is a form of writ of execution used in the County court in England and Wales (only). It is a method of enforcing judgements and empowers a county court bailiff to attend a judgement debtor’s address to take goods for sale. The closest equivalent in Scotland is a Charge for Payment, executed by Sheriff Officers after a decree is granted in a Sheriff Court in favour of a pursuer (claimant) seeking recovery of a debt or other sum due.

Chose is a term used in common law tradition to refer to rights in property, specifically a combined bundle of rights. A chose describes the enforcement right which a party possesses in an object. The use of Chose extends from the English use of French within the courts. In English and commonwealth law, all personal things fall into one of two categories, either choses in action or choses in possession. English law uses a chose to refer to a bundle of rights, traditionally relating to property which may be utilised in certain circumstances. Thus, a Chose in action refers to a bundle of personal rights which can only be enforced or claimed by a chose-holder bringing an action through the court to enforce the action. In English law, this category is enormously wide. This is contrasted with a Chose in Possession which represents rights which can be enforced or acquired by taking physical possession of the chose. This may be, for example a legal mortgage. Both choses in possession and choses in action create separate proprietary interests. What differs between each is the method in which each chose may be enforced. This is dependent on the possessory nature of the reference object.

<i>Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act</i> the statute that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

Generally, a secured transaction is a loan or a credit transaction in which the lender acquires a security interest in collateral owned by the borrower and is entitled to foreclose on or repossess the collateral in the event of the borrower's default. The terms of the relationship are governed by a contract, or security agreement. A common example would be a consumer who purchases a car on credit. If the consumer fails to make the payments on time, the lender will take the car and resell it, applying the proceeds of the sale toward the loan. Mortgages and deeds of trust are another example. In the United States, secured transactions in personal property are governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.).

Creditors' rights are the procedural provisions designed to protect the ability of creditors—persons who are owed money—to collect the money that they are owed. These provisions vary from one jurisdiction to another, and may include the ability of a creditor to put a lien on a debtor's property, to effect a seizure and forced sale of the debtor's property, to effect a garnishment of the debtor's wages, and to have certain purchases or gifts made by the debtor set aside as fraudulent conveyances. The rights of a particular creditor usually depend in part on the reason for which the debt is owed, and the terms of any writing memorializing the debt.

A general assignment or assignment is a concept in bankruptcy law that has a similar meaning, due to common law ancestry, in different jurisdictions, but wide dispersion in practical application. The "assignment for the benefit of creditors", also known as an ABC or AFBC is an alternative to bankruptcy, which is a "general assignment"/"assignment" concept.

A pledge is a bailment that conveys possessory title to property owned by a debtor to a creditor to secure repayment for some debt or obligation and to the mutual benefit of both parties. The term is also used to denote the property which constitutes the security. A pledge is type of security interest.

Subordination in banking and finance refers to the order of priorities in claims for ownership or interest in various assets.

Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of, 161.21, and interest thereon at eight percent per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the roadbed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the State of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale unless within a given time the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property in which the appellants are interested.

The insolvency law of Switzerland is the law governing insolvency, foreclosure, bankruptcy and debt restructuring proceedings in Switzerland. It is principally codified in the Federal Statute on Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy of 11 April 1889 as well as in ancillary federal and cantonal laws.

Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476 (1885), was a case involving several judgments of the United States Court of Claims in four cases against the United States for the payment of United States bonds known as "five-twenty bonds."

The collection of judgments in Virginia may be accomplished under a number of routes provided under Virginia law, depending on the amount of the judgment and the particular assets that the judgment creditor wishes to pursue.

Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [1998] AC 214 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning the taking of a security interest over a company's assets and priority of creditors in a company winding up.

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

Insolvency in South African law refers to a status of diminished legal capacity imposed by the courts on persons who are unable to pay their debts, or whose liabilities exceed their assets. The insolvent's diminished legal capacity entails deprivation of certain of his important legal capacities and rights, in the interests of protecting other persons, primarily the general body of existing creditors, but also prospective creditors. Insolvency is also of benefit to the insolvent, in that it grants him relief in certain respects.

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

In Bulgaria, the law of obligations is set out by the Obligations and Contracts Act (OCA). According to art. 20a OCA contracts shall have the force of a law for the parties that have concluded them.

References

  1. Looney v. District of Columbia, 113 U.S. 258 (1885).
<i>United States Reports</i> official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.