Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123 (1919)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123 (1919)
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States No.192 Argued April 17, 1919 Decided May 19, 1919 250 U.S. 123
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
It is a perversion of the rule requiring assignments of error to multiply them unnecessarily. P. 124.
State statutes of limitations and the principle of laches are inapplicable to the United States when asserting governmental rights. P. 125.
Semble that the presumption of payment arising from the lapse of twenty years without suit to collect does not apply to the United States in such cases. Id.
The collection of dividends declared on corporate shares owned by the United States is an assertion of its right as creditor unaffected by its relations as shareholder, and, in suing for such dividends, they being public moneys applicable only to public purposes, the United States acts in its governmental capacity. P. 126.
Books of the Treasury Department showing the miscellaneous receipts and disbursements of the government, printed from the written public records of the Department pursuant to the acts of Congress and Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, of the Constitution and used as original records in the daily business of the Department and produced from its custody held competent evidence without certification under Rev.Stats. § 882 for the purpose of proving the nonpayment as well as the payment of dividends by a private corporation to the United States. P. 127.
Evidence held sufficient to show that dividends sued for by the government many years after they were declared were never paid, and to sustain refusal of defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. P. 129.
240 F. 903 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123 (1919) in 250 U.S. 123 250 U.S. 124. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4GCZVP3PQUXFD4S.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123 (1919), in 250 U.S. 123, page 250 U.S. 124. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4GCZVP3PQUXFD4S.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123 (1919). cited in 1919, 250 U.S. 123, pp.250 U.S. 124. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4GCZVP3PQUXFD4S.
|