11 Minn. 204 | Minn. | 1866
Lead Opinion
There is no doubt, from the evidence in this case, that the defendant supposed he was acting officially in the transaction upon which this action is based, and intended to act in his official character as a member of the board of enrollment; and he here relies upon his official character in the transaction as a defense to the action. But the court below did not sustain this defense. Upon this point the court charged the jury as follows : “ The rule undoubtedly is, that a person acting as a public agent cannot be holden personally ; but the defendant, in receiving the money in question, was not acting as a public officer. It was no part of the duties of the board oí enrollment to receive substitute bounties; the laws under which these boards were constituted provided for no such action on their part, although the Secretary oí War, from very proper motives, had undertaken to regulate these matters, with a view to the protection of the government and the substitute ; that the orders of the Provost Marshal in reference to these moneys were therefore extra-official; and the defendant, in acting under them, was not acting as a public officer, but as an individual; that the orders did not protect the defendant, unless it was shown that the plaintiff contracted with knowledge of them.” It would seem to be conceded that the ground upon which the defense set up is rejected, is the want of authority in the Secretary of War to authorize, through his subordinates, or establish these regulations, as to substitute bounties. The existence in fact of orders in terms covering the action of the defendant as a member of the board of enrollment, is admitted, but the legal validity of these orders is denied. We shall therefore consider the matter in this light.
By the eighth section of the act of congress, approved March 3, 1863, (Stat. at Large 1862-3, page †32,) a board of enrollment is created for each enrollment district, composed of the Provost Marshal, as president, and two other persons, to be appointed by the President of the United States, one of
Order denying a new trial reversed, and new trial granted.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in the view that the order in this case denying the motion for a new trial should be reversed.
It is not necessary to determine, whether the ruling of the court below receiving parol evidence to show that the plaintiff was sworn into the service was erroneous, as such ruling was not excepted to.
The principal question to be decided is, what was the contract between the plaintiff and defendant ? If the money was delivered to the defendant, to be held absolutely and unconditionally for the plaintiff, then the defense set up is insufficient.
■ The evidence offered, both on part of plaintiff and defendant, conclusively shows that the money was not taken by the defendant to beheld absolutely and unconditionally, subject to the plaintiff’s order.
The remark made by defendant to the plaintiff on receipt of said money, that the plaintiff could, if he needed it, have $50 or $100, shows that it was well understood that defendant had a right to hold the whole, or at least a part of said money, as against the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff’s father, who seems to have acted for him in the whole transaction, testifies : “ The reason why the money was not paid over was, because some had slipped, the guard and escaped. The understanding was, that the boy should receive the money when he handed the receipt to Col. Morgan, at the Port.”
The evidence in the case, we think, conclusively shows that the plaintiff well knew that this money was received by the defendant in accordance with the rules of the office, and that it should be paid over in accordance with said rules.
In accordance with the rules of the office, no money was to be paid to substitutes until they were mustered into the service; and the plaintiff in this case never having been mustered, did not become entitled to said money. The evidence, therefore, did not justify the verdict, and a new trial should be granted.
The court below received evidence showing the statements of Brousseaux (substitute broker) to plaintiff, not made in defendant’s presence. These statements, we think, were cal
The order appealed from, I think, therefore, should be reversed.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in each of the opinions filed in this case.