
    SARAH A. HARRIS, Administratrix, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 16241.
    Decided February 23, 1892.]
    
      On ihe Proofs.
    
    A voucher is given to a blacksmith for work done on an Indian reservation. He transfers and assigns it for a valuable consideration, Subsequently an appropriation is made to pay it. A Treasury draft is issued, payable to the order of his administratrix; but it is sent by mail against her protest to the assignee of the voucher, who has retained it for more than three years.
    I.The assignment of a voucher is absolutely null and void, under the Revised Statutes § 3477.
    II.A Treasury draft outstanding for more than, three years, the appropriation to pay it covered into the Treasury, has ceased to be negotiable paper.
    III.A claimant having an amount rightly due to her, standing to her credit on the books of the Treasury, under Revised Statutes § 306, is entitled to recover, though a draft more than three years outstanding for the same debt, is in the hands of a third person.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. William P. Harris, now deceased, had a claim of $269 for services as blacksmith and for subsistence allowance on Kla-math Beservation, from October 1 to December 31,1871, for which he received a voucher from “ the commissary in charge.” This voucher was transferred and assigned to one Thomas Wingfield, in part payment for some interest in lands sold by him to said Harris.
    n. Said voucher was presented to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, who allowed the claim January 22,1886, and referred it to the Second Auditor of the Treasury for settlement, “payment to be made to whomsoever the accounting officers may decide entitled thereto.”
    III. November 1, 1886, the, Second Comptroller admitted and certified the same “payable to Sarah A. Harris, adminis-tratrix, care of Thomas Wingfield.”
    
      IY. By authority of the act of July 7,1884, chapter 334 (1 Supp. Bev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 470, par. 2) the claim was certified to Congress, and thus appears in House Ex. Doc. No. 19, Fiftieth Congress, first session:
    
      
    
    Under an appropriation made by Congress in the general deficiency act of February 1,1888, section 2 (25 Stat. L., 26,29), a Treasury warrant was drawn in the form stated by the Second Comptroller, and a draft or check dated February 13, 1888, was issued in accordance therewith, payable on demand to said administratrix or her order.
    Y. Said draft or check was sent by mail, against claimant’s protest, to said Wingfield, who has ever since retained and refuses to surrender it to the claimant. He was not an attorney at law, or agent, or a person representing claimant before the Treasury Department, and it does not appear, that he filed therein a power of attorney authorizing him to receive said check. Said administratrix lias never indorsed said draft or check, has never received it from said Wingfield, and has revoked and repudiated said assignment of the original voucher. Suit was brought by Wingfield in the Superior Court of Te-hama County, Cal., against claimant to compel her to indorse the draft or check. This suit, on the 21st of November, 1889, was dismissed by the plaintiff.
    YI. Said draft or check having remained outstanding, unsatisfied, and unpaid for more-than three years, the amount was covered into the Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Bevised Statutes, section 306, on or about July 20, 1891, by warraut and carried to the credit of said administra-trix, in whose favor the draft or check had been issued, and still so remains to her credit. She has demanded payment at the Treasury and it has been refused.
    
      Mr. W. B. King for the claimant.
    
      Mr. F. P. Dewees (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Cotton) for the defendants.
    
      If Wingfield is wrongfully in possession of tbe draft, then tbe remedy of plaintiff is against Mm, not against tbe Government.
    Tbe question presented to tbe court is not as to whether tbe plaintiff is entitled to tbe amount of tbe claim; that is acknowledged by tbe Government and a draft for tbe same issued.
    Wingfield, in whose possession tbe draft is, claims a lien on tbe same. He is not a party to tMs suit; could not be made a party. Tbe rights of tbe Government are not at issue; it is a ' dispute between claimants of tbe fund. Tbe court is asked to .settle a claim between individuals without tbe real party defendant being present in court.
   Richardson, Ob. J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Tbe claimant’s intestate did work for the defendants as a blacksmith on an Indian reservation, for which be received a voucher for $269 from tbe “ commissary in charge.” He transferred and assigned this voucher to one Wingfield in part payment for some interest in lahds purchased from tbe latter.

Tbe Commissioner of Indian Affairs allowed tbe amount, and referred it to tbe Second Auditor of tbe Treasury for settlement, “payment tobe made to whomsoever tbe accounting officers may decide entitled thereto.” Tbe Second Comptroller admitted and certified the same “payable to Sarah A. Harris, admin-istratrix, care of Thomas Wingfield.”

In accordance with statute provisions in relation to claims under exhausted appropriation (act of July 7,1884, ch. 334, 1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 470, par. 2) tbe claim was certified to Congress, and an appropriation out of which it might be paid was made by tbe act of February 1,1888 (25 Stat. L., 26, 29). Under this appropriation a Treasury warrant was drawn for tbe amount in tbe form stated by the Comptroller.

Upon this warrant a check, or draft as it is called at tbe Treasury, dated February 1,1888, was issued, payable on demand, to Sarah A. Harris, administratrix, or her order.

Tbe check was sent by mail, against claimant’s protest, to said Wingfield, who has ever since retained it and who refuses to surrender it to tbe claimant, and it has never been indorsed by her or paid. '

Having remained outstanding, unsatisfied, and unpaid for more than three years, the amount was covered into the Treasury by warrant about July 20, 1891, to the credit of said adminis-tratrix, and there remains to her credit on the boots of the Treasury Department.

The assignment to Wingfield of the voucher was absolutely null and void by Revised Statutes, section 3477 (see United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. R., 413; Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. R., 485, and numerous other cases).

The defendants became liable to the claimant and to her alone for the amount. The check was erroneously sent to Wingfield, who was not an attorney at law, or an agent, or a person representing claimants before the Treasury Department, and who, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of the “regulations governing attorneys and agents practicing before the Treasury Department” made by the Secretary under authority of the act of July 7,1884, chapter 334, section 3 (1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 470).

Being payable on demand and not presented within three years, and the amount having been covered into the Treasury, the check has ceased to be negotiable paper, transferable in the market, except as subject to all defenses of the maker. Payment to the present claimant upon the judgment of the court will be a bar to any liability by the defendants upon the check in whatsoever hands it may happen to fall.

The claimant, having an amount rightly due to her standing to her credit on the books of the Treasury Department, under Revised Statutes, section 306, is entitled to recover, as was held in the like case of Wayne (26 C. Cls. R., 274); and judgment will be entered in her favor for $269.  