Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 3.djvu/633

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS.Sess. I. Ch. 107.1820.

discharged by due course of law. Notwithstanding the commitment of such officer, or if he abscond, or if goods and chattels cannot be found sufficient to satisfy the said warrant, the marshal or his deputy may, and shall proceed to levy and collect the sum which remains due by such delinquent officer, by the distress and saleWarrants remaining unsatisfied by proceedings against delinquent.
Ten days’ notice of sale, at two or more public places, &c.
Amount due by delinquent officer, a lien upon lands, &c. of himself and sureties.
For want of goods, &c. lands, &c. may be sold.
Three weeks’ notice of sale of lands, &c. of the goods and chattels of the surety or sureties of such officer; having given ten days’ previous notice of such intended sale, by affixing an advertisement of the articles to be sold, at two or more public places in the town or county where the said goods or chattels were taken, or in the town or county where the owner of such goods or chattels resides. And the amount due by any such officer as aforesaid, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, a lien upon the lands, tenements, and hereditaments of such officer and his sureties, from the date of a levy in pursuance of the warrant of distress issued against him or them, and a record thereof, made in the office of the clerk of the district court of the proper district, until the same shall be discharged according to law. And for want of goods and chattels of such officer, or his surety or sureties, sufficient to satisfy any warrant of distress issued pursuant to the provisions of this act, the lands, tenements, and hereditaments of such officer and his surety or sureties, or so much thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, after being advertised for at least three weeks in not less than three public places in the county or district where such real estate is situate, prior to the time of sale, may and shall be sold by the marshal of such district or his deputy; and for all lands, tenements, or hereditaments sold in pursuance of the authority aforesaid, the conveyance of the marshals or their deputies,Conveyance of the marshal to give a valid title to lands sold, &c. executed in due form of law, shall give a valid title against all persons claiming under such delinquent officer, or his surety or sureties. And all moneys which may remain of the proceeds of such sales, after satisfying the said warrant of distress, and paying the reasonable costs and charges of the sale, shall be returned to such delinquent officer or surety, as the case may be: Provided, That the summary process herein directed shall not affect any surety of any officer of the United States, who became bound to the United States before the passing of this act; but each and every such officer shall, on or before the thirtieth day of September next, give new and sufficient sureties for the performance of the duties required of such officer.^[1]

↑ The cases decided upon the provisions of this section are:
The Treasury Department of the United States, on the 14th of July, 1829, issued a warrant of distress, directed to the marshal of the District of Columbia, commanding him to levy and collect, by distress and sale of his goods and chattels, a sum of money alleged to be due to the United States, on a treasury transcript, by Joseph Nourse late register of the treasury. This warrant was issued in pursuance of the 2d, 3d, and 4th sections of the act of May 15th, 1820, “providing for the better organization of the Treasury Department.” Under the provisions of the 4th section of the act, Mr. Nourse obtained an injunction from the chief justice of the District of Columbia to stay all further proceedings on the said warrant. The bill presented by Mr. Nourse to the chief justice of the District of Columbia asserted that the United States was indebted to him for compensation for extra services he had rendered to the United States, in a sum exceeding the amount claimed by the United States: which claim was denied in the answer filed by the district attorney of the United States, both as to the legality and the amount of the claim.
The court determined that Mr. Joseph Nourse was entitled to compensation for the extra services he had rendered to the government, in the agencies mentioned in the bill; and appointed auditors to ascertain the value of his services and compensation, and to report thereon without delay. The report of the auditors allowed to the complainant a commission of two and a half per cent. on the sum of nine hundred and forty-three thousand three hundred and eight dollars, and eighty-three cents, disbursed by him in the several agencies in which he had been employed, leaving a balance due to him from the United States. The report was confirmed, and the injunction made perpetual.
The United States then instituted their suit against Joseph Nourse in the circuit court for the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington, on an account authenticated according to law, by the proper accounting officers, being the same account, and claiming the same amount as in the warrant of distress, and on which the decree of the Chief Justice was pronounced. It was agreed that the defendant should have the benefit of the proceedings in that case, as if the same had been pleaded and given in evidence. The circuit court adjudged the proceedings in the former action a bar to this action.
By the Court. It is a rule to which no exception is recollected, that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, while unreversed, concludes the subject-matter as between the same parties. They cannot again bring it into litigation. The United States v. Nourse, 9 Peters’ Rep. 8.

[p593-1] The cases decided upon the provisions of this section are:
The Treasury Department of the United States, on the 14th of July, 1829, issued a warrant of distress, directed to the marshal of the District of Columbia, commanding him to levy and collect, by distress and sale of his goods and chattels, a sum of money alleged to be due to the United States, on a treasury transcript, by Joseph Nourse late register of the treasury. This warrant was issued in pursuance of the 2d, 3d, and 4th sections of the act of May 15th, 1820, “providing for the better organization of the Treasury Department.” Under the provisions of the 4th section of the act, Mr. Nourse obtained an injunction from the chief justice of the District of Columbia to stay all further proceedings on the said warrant. The bill presented by Mr. Nourse to the chief justice of the District of Columbia asserted that the United States was indebted to him for compensation for extra services he had rendered to the United States, in a sum exceeding the amount claimed by the United States: which claim was denied in the answer filed by the district attorney of the United States, both as to the legality and the amount of the claim.
The court determined that Mr. Joseph Nourse was entitled to compensation for the extra services he had rendered to the government, in the agencies mentioned in the bill; and appointed auditors to ascertain the value of his services and compensation, and to report thereon without delay. The report of the auditors allowed to the complainant a commission of two and a half per cent. on the sum of nine hundred and forty-three thousand three hundred and eight dollars, and eighty-three cents, disbursed by him in the several agencies in which he had been employed, leaving a balance due to him from the United States. The report was confirmed, and the injunction made perpetual.
The United States then instituted their suit against Joseph Nourse in the circuit court for the District of Columbia, in the county of Washington, on an account authenticated according to law, by the proper accounting officers, being the same account, and claiming the same amount as in the warrant of distress, and on which the decree of the Chief Justice was pronounced. It was agreed that the defendant should have the benefit of the proceedings in that case, as if the same had been pleaded and given in evidence. The circuit court adjudged the proceedings in the former action a bar to this action.
By the Court. It is a rule to which no exception is recollected, that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, while unreversed, concludes the subject-matter as between the same parties. They cannot again bring it into litigation. The United States v. Nourse, 9 Peters’ Rep. 8.

[1]