
    DENNIS LOONEY v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    (19 C. Cls. R., 230; 113 U. S. R., 258.)
    
      On the claimanfs Appeal.
    
    The claimant’s is a “difference case,” identical with Morgan’s (19 C. Cls. R., 156). The defendant sets up a counter-claim for an overpayment made through a clerical error.
    • The court below decides—
    (1.) A contractor who received certificates of indebtedness in payment of his demand, and sold them for less than the nominal value thereof, cannot recover the difference.
    
      (2.) The power of this court to render judgment against a claimant upon a counter-claim, under Revised Statutes, 5 1059, is well settled.
    (3.) The application of the Revised Statutes, § 1059, upon the subject of counter-claims to cases wherein the District of Columbia is defendant in this court has been considered and settled.
   The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the following grounds: (1) A creditor who receives from his debtor a certificate in writing, not negotiable, of the amount of his debt, and sells the certificate to a third person for value less than its nominal amount, thereby authorizes the purchaser to receive the amount from the debtor, and cannot, after the debtor has paid it to the purchaser, maintain any action against the debtor. (2) A creditor who receives from his debtor a negotiable instrument of the debtor for the amount of his debt, and sells it for its market value to a third person, cannot sue the debtor on the original debt.

Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 26, 1885.  