
    John W. Sauner, administrator of John P. Hall, v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The accounts of collectors in relation to their separate duties as disbursing agents and as collectors of internal revenue are leeptin separate boohs at the Treasury. After the death of a collector a balance is found due to him as disbursing agent of $514.76. Subsequently a balance is found against him as collector of $3,701.96. Congress thereupon pass an act for the relief of his estate and sureties, directing the accounting officers to credit the accounts “ with the sum of $3,701.96, being the amount due the United States as shown by the Treasury statement.” The accounting officers thereupon restate the account by first crediting thereon the balance due the deceased as disbursing officer, and Ihen crediting $3,187.20 as remitted by act of Congress.
    
    I.A collector of internal revenue directed by the Secretary of the Treasury to act as disbursing agent must give a bond as such disbursing agent seprarate from and additional to his bond as collector, and the accounts of collectors and of collectors as disbursing agents are kept in separate books at the Treasury.
    II.Where a special act for the relief of a collector directs the accounting officers of the Treasury to credit his accounts “wiihthesumof $3,701.96, being the amount due the United States as shown by the Ireasury statements,” and it appears' that at the time the act was passed he was' debited as collector on the books of the Treasury with that precise amount, and was at the same time credited as disbursing officer with another amount, if must be inferred that Congress intended to release the amount named in the act for which he as collector and his sureties were held responsible, and did not intend a re-examination or restatement of his accounts, whereby he should be relieved as to only a part of the amount of $3,701.96.
    III.The accounting officers of the Treasury are not authorized to enforce ■payment in whole or in part, by set-off or otherwise, of a canceled and discharged indebtedness. Ex. gr., where Congress have relieved a collector of internal revenue from responsibility for a balance due by him as collector, the accounting officers cannot set it off against a balance due to him as disbursing officer. The distinction between this case and McKnight’s (13 C. Cls. R., 292; 98 U. S. R., 179) stated.
    The-Peporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of this case as found by the court:
    T. The claimant’s intestate, John P. Hall, was United States collector of internal revenue and disbursing agent for tlie first collection district in the State of Kentucky for many years previous and up to May 8, 1874, when he died. Thereafter the claimant was duly appointed administrator of his estate.
    II. On the 12th of June, 1876, the accounting officers stated an account of said Hall as disbursing agent, and admitted and certified a balance due him of $298.45, for which a warrant was issued with directions to remit to the care of the First Comptroller. On the loth of June, 1876, a draft for that sum was drawn by the assistant treasurer at Washington upon the Treasurer, payable to the order of said John P. Hall, and was remitted to the care of the First Comptroller.
    On the 24th of June, 1876, the accounting officers stated another and further account of said Hall as disbursing agent, and admitted and certified a balance due him of $350.44, with directions to dispose of the same as follows, viz, $134.13 to be' carried to his credit on account of the appropriation for expenses of assessing and collecting internal revenue for the fiscal year .1873, and draft for the remainder, $216.30, to be sent to the care of the First Comptroller. On the 29th of June, 1876, a draft for that sum was drawn by the assistant treasurer at Washington, on the assistant treasurer at New York, payable to the order of said John P. Hall, and was sent to the care of the First Comptroller.
    That these balances thus stated, for which said drafts were issued, correctly set forth the amounts due said Hall on said accounts is not controverted.
    III. The two drafts aforesaid were retained by the First Comptroller. Having remained three years outstanding, unsatisfied and unpaid, the amounts thereof were duly covered into the Treasury and placed to the personal credit of said Hall, by a covering-in warrant, dated July 37, 1879, and so stood to his credit when Congress passed the act hereinafter set forth, and have never been paid.
    IV. On statement of the accounts of said Hall as collector on his revenue and stamp account, there was found to be a balance due from him to the United States of $3,701.96, for which his estate and the sureties on his bond as collector were liable. On the 16th of June, -1880, Congress passed the following special act:
    
      “Aíí ACT for the relief of tlic estate and sureties of John P. Hall, deceased.
    
      11 Be it enacted, d?c., That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury are hereby directed to credit the accounts of John P. Hall, deceased, late collector of internal revenue for the first collection district in the State of Kentucky, with the sum of three thousand seven hundred and one dollars and ninety-six cents, being the amount'due the United States of America, as shown by the Treasury statements; and the estate and sureties of said Hall, deceased, are hereby released from liability on the bonds of said Hall as such collector, and from any judgment which may have been rendered on said bonds or either of them.”
    V. Some time in February, 1881, the First Comptroller stated anew the account of said Hall as collector, charging him with the balance found due from him on his revenue and stamp accounts ... $3,701 90
    Crediting him under the special act of
    June 16, 1880, with the sum of.. $3,187 20 instead of $3,701.90 as therein specified.
    Also, with the amount standing to his credit on account of the drafts issued in settlement of his accounts as disbursing agent ... 514 70
    -3,701 90
    
      Mr. George L. Douglas for the claimant:
    This indebtedness presents itself in two or three aspects; but, in our view, most conclusively as a debt evidenced by the two drafts referred to, drawn to the order of claimant’s intestate, and now before the court. That these drafts are the property of Hall’s estate and are wrongfully -withheld seems too clear for argument. That this court can aiford a remedy seems equally plain. Though it cannot decree a delivery of the drafts, it can render judgment for the debt of which the drafts are an undeniable evidence.
    Manual possession by the plaintiff of a bill of exchange is not essential in an action upon it. (5 East., 477; Byles on Bills, 377; 10 Johns., 104; 3 Oowen, 303; 3 Wend., 344.) Beeovery can be had upon a lost bill not negotiable, or where the bill has been destroyed, or where it has been given up to the defendant by mistake. (5 Conn., 71.) If this be true, the reasoning will apply a fortiori where the plaintiff has been wrongfully deprived of possession of the bill by.an agent of the defendant.
    
      The bill is not extinguished until paid. (Byles ou Bills, 220.) And Lord Ellenborongh held that where the acceptor of a. bill improperly detained the bill in his hands, the drawer might nevertheless sue him on it, and give him notice to produce the bill, or on his default give parole evidence of it. (5 East., 477.) This seems to be in all respects parallel in principle with the case now under consideration.
    When the United States, by its authorized officer, becomes a party to negotiable paper, they have all the rights and incur all the responsibilities of individuals who are parties to such instruments. (15 Pet. 377; 7 Wall.,'666.) lu the present case it is conceded that the drafts were duly issued by the agent (Treasurer) of the United States thereunto lawfully authorized. Such drafts constitute new contracts, into which the previous claims upon which they issue are merged. (13 O. Olsi B.,305.)
    The fact, therefore, that they were wrongfully detained by another functionary, who happened to obtain manual possession of them after they had once been actually issued, has no effect upon the merits of the case.
    Even assuming that the drafts came rightfully into the Comptroller’s hands in the first instance, he was at best merely a trustee charged with the duty of holding them until the outstanding indebtedness of the payee was satisfied; and then with the further duty to deliver them to the payee or his legal representative. The outstanding indebtedness was satisfied in full June 16,1880, by act of Congress, and there then remained to the Comptroller the sole duty to deliver the drafts. This he refused to do.
    But the wrongful act of a public officer in refusing to deliver the rightful evidence of a debt cannot smother the debt itself. That evidence, in the shape of two uncanceled and unpaid drafts, drawn by the Treasurer of the United States, is now before this court. These drafts are absolute and conclusive evidence of the indebtedness of the United States; and, in the absence of any legitimate counter-claim, judgment must follow as a matter of course.
    
      Mr. George G. Wing (with whom was the Assistant Attorney - General) for the defendants:
    The -title of the act in question literally imports the removal of a burden, and the whole burden here was the unfavorable Treasury balance of $3,187.20, as shown above.
    
      ■ This actual liability is the guide to construction, and this is further expressed by the explanatory words following the sum specified, “ being the amount due the United States of America, as shown by the Treasury statements.” The design being to authorize such an adjustment that the Treasury statements would no longer exhibit a prima facie liability, the only power conferred is “ to credit the account,” and words suggesting an appropriation of public money are neither required nor used.
    By virtue of the act, the Treasury would accordingly not open a separate account as where an appropriation is made, nor would a warrant be drawn upon the Treasurer and the moneys sot aside upon it. The sole purpose was to authorize a credit where a credit was necessary, and must otherwise be demanded and collected of private individuals. It was to neutralize the presumptive evidence of government accounts, and it confirmed the intended benefit by formally releasing those from the liability therefrom, which, it appears, had already been asserted in the courts. A clause in an appropriation bill and in express terms to pay a specified sum to an individual named has been treated as conferring no absolute right to the amount, but that this could be reduced by the accounting officers. (16 Opin., 66.)
    • Such reasoning applies with greater force to an act which is neither in form or declaration one to release”and bestow the government funds.
    A liberal construction may be given to a private act for relief, but this doctriue is far extended when such act is used not only to acquit an existing responsibility, but to take from the government by technical rendering money which has never been earned, and Avliich could not otherwise be claimed.
   Hichardson, J.,

delivered the oinnion of the court:

The claimant’s intestate, John P. Hall, was a collector of internal revenue, and disbursing agent of the United States, for many years previous to his death in May, 1874.

At the time of his appointment as collector, the statute made it the duty of such of the collectors of internal revenue as the Secretary of the Treasury should direct to act as disbursing agents for certain purposes, and to give good and sufficent bonds with sureties for the faithful performance of their duties as such disbursing agents, in such sum and form as should be prescribed by the First Comptroller and approved by the Secretary. {Act March 3, 1865, cb. 78, § 4; 13 Stat. L., 483; Rev. Stat-., § 3144; Act March 1, 1879, cb. 125, § 2; Sup’lmt R. S., 424.)

Tbe bond thus required of bim was separate from, and additional to, bis bond as collector. (Act June 30, 1864, ch. 173, § 9; 13 Stat. L., 225; Rev. Stat., § 3143; Act March 1, 1875, oil. 125, § 2; Sup’lmt R. S., 423.)

The accounts of each collector in relation to bis separate duties as disbursing agent and as collector of tbe internal revenue were, and still are, kept separate in tbe books of tbe Treasury Department-

After the death of tbe claimant’s intestate, it was found that there was due and owing to him on his account as disbursing-agent tbe sum of $514.76, besides another small sum not now-in controversy. For this amount warrants were duly drawn on the Treasurer in bis favor, and drafts were issued thereon payable to bis order, although deceased, and were sent by the Treasurer, as required by tbe warrants, to the care of tbe First Comptroller, -who has ever since retained the same in the department.

These drafts remaining in the hands of the First Comptroller three years, unsatisfied and unpaid, the amounts thereof were duly covered into the Treasury and placed to the personal credit of said intestate July 17, 1879, in accordance with the provisions of Revised Statutes, sections 306, 307. The latter section provides that “all such moneys mentioned in this and the preceding section shall remain as a permanent ajrpropriation for the redemption and payment of all such outstanding-certificates, drafts, and checks.”

Such was the state of the account of Mr. Hall, the intestate, as disbursing agent, when this action was brought by the present claimant, who had been appointed administrator of his estate.

It is not denied, on the part of the defendants, that this sum stood properly to the credit of the deceased, and that it was justly due to his administrator unless it was rightly credited to him in another account and set off against another indebtedness, in relation to which the facts are as follows :

Some time after the decease of Hall, it was found that he was indebted to the defendants, as collector, on his revenue and stamp accounts, to the amount of $3,701.96, and that balance appeared against him on the Treasury statements.

On the 16th of June, 1880, Congress passed an act entitled “An act for the relief of the estate and sureties of John P. Hall, deceased.” This act directed the proper accounting officers of the Treasury to credit the accounts of said Hall “ with the sum of $3,701.96, being the amount due the United States of America, as shown by the Treasury statements ”; and provided further “that the estate and sureties of said Hall, deceased, are hereby released from liability on the bonds of said Hall, as such collector, and from any judgment which may have been rendered on said bonds or either of them.”

The accounting officers in February, 1881, stated anew the account of said Hall, and,- charging him with the $3,701.96 due on his revenue and stamps accounts as collected, they credited him with the $514.76 standing to his personal credit on account of the drafts which had been issued for balances due him as disbursing agent and which had been covered into the Treasury. They then credited him with only $3,187.20 of the sum mentioned in the act for his relief. Thus they balanced his accounts and refused to allow the claimant to be paid said sum of $514.76.

The only question of law is, What was the-intention of Congress in directing the accounting officers to credit the late collector “with the sum of $3,701.96, being the amount due the United States of America, as shown by the Treasury state meuts”

Did they intend by that language to require the accounting officers to ascertain, by still further examination, how all matters of debit and credit stood between him and the defendants, growing out of any and all relations, official or otherwise, which he had ever had with the government, to restate the accounts and to credit him with oidy so much of the sum of $3,701.96 mentioned in the act as they should find due as a balance upon such restatement ? We think not. It is quite clear from the terms of the act that Congress had before them the account of the deceased, as collector proper, just as it then stood in the Treasury statements, and no other. He is designated as “late collector of internal revenue,” and no reference is made to his official capacity of disbursing agent. The amount directed to be credited corresponds exactly with the balance which appeared by that account to be due from him as collector. It was this sum for which his sureties on his collector’s bonds were liable and. from, tbe payment of wliich they were released by the act. The whole tenor of the act shows that Congress did' not contemplate the re-examination and restatement of accounts. They were dealing with a particular account already stated, and it was the balance thus found that they intended to release. Had their intention been otherwise, we may well presume that they would have inserted after the specified amount the words “ or so much thereof as may be necessary”— words so frequently found in appropriation acts when the exact sum which may be required is left to be determined by future investigation or future circumstances.

For some reason, which does not appear, Congress saw fit to release the collector’s estate and his sureties from this whole balance “shown by the Treasury statements” to be due from-him in his capacity as collector, and it is not for this court to defeat their will by making his estate pay $514.76 toward it by applying thereto an indebtedness from the defendants to him growing out of other transactions, which were not considered by Congress, and were not in the minds of the legislators. Wilcox’s Case (12 C. Cls. R., 495; affirmed on appeal, 95 U. S., 661.)

That account of the deceased collector having been thus settled and balanced, there remains to his personal credit on another account the sum of $514.76, which the defendants can no more retain than an individual who holds bonds as collateral security for a note can retain them after the note is paid. The defendants’ officers are not warranted in enforcing payment, in whole or in part, by set-off or otherwise, of a canceled and discharged indebtedness.-

The case is materially different from that of McKnight et al. v. The United States, cited and relied upon by the defendants’ counsel. In that case the accounting officers, properly as we held, offset an existing debt to the claimants against an existing debt from them. (13 C. Cls. R., 292; affirmed on appeal, 98 U. S., 179.) In this case it is sought to set off an existing indebtedness to the claimant against a former debt from him which has been canceled and discharged by act of Congress.

The claimant will have judgment for $514.76.  