Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

regulation
plaintiffdefendantverdicttestimony

Related Cases

Smith v. Rapid Transit, 317 Mass. 469, 58 N.E.2d 754
View Case »
Gallegos v. State of Neb., 342 U.S. 55, 72 S.Ct. 141, 96 L.Ed. 86
View Case »
Moore v. State of Michigan, 355 U.S. 155, 78 S.Ct. 191, 2 L.Ed.2d 167
View Case »
People v. Wagner, 13 Cal.3d 612, 532 P.2d 105, 119 Cal.Rptr. 457
View Case »
People v. McConnell, 49 N.Y.2d 340, 402 N.E.2d 133, 425 N.Y.S.2d 794
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Buchanan, 49 U.S. 83, 8 How. 83, 1850 WL 6846, 12 L.Ed. 997

Facts

Buchanan, a purser in the navy, was sued by the United States for a balance due on three bonds he executed. He claimed credits for commissions on drawing bills of exchange, payments to mechanics and laborers, and losses from sales of slops. The government contended that these claims were not supported by the rules and regulations governing pursers, which did not allow for such commissions.

It was a suit brought by the United States against Buchanan, who was a purser in the navy, to recover a balance of $11,535.50, alleged to be due by him.

Issue

Whether Buchanan was entitled to claim commissions for drawing bills of exchange and for payments made to mechanics and laborers, and whether he could set off alleged losses against the government's claim.

The question, whether or not these acts were part of the official duty of pursers, was one of law, to be decided by the court, and not of fact to be left to the jury.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a purser's duties and compensation are governed by established regulations, which do not permit commissions for the services Buchanan claimed.

A custom cannot be set up against a settled rule; nor can it ever be binding unless it be ancient, reasonable, generally known, and certain.

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims based on the rules and regulations from the Blue Book and Red Book, determining that the duties performed by Buchanan were part of his official responsibilities and did not warrant additional compensation. The court emphasized that any custom or usage contrary to these regulations could not be recognized.

The evidence on the part of the defendant consisted of the correspondence which had passed between himself and Commodore Claxton and others; and also testimony, oral and documentary, upon the respective binding authority of the Blue and Red Books; and also upon the custom and usage of the navy with respect to pursers' commissions.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the United States was entitled to recover the full amount claimed, as Buchanan's assertions for commissions were not supported by law or regulation.

The jury, under the above instructions of the court, found the following verdict:—— 'We, the jury, impanelled in the case of the United States v. McKean Buchanan, a purser in the navy, find that there is due by the plaintiffs to the defendant the following sums…'

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that the claims for commissions made by Buchanan were not authorized under the applicable regulations.

The United States brought the case up, by writ of error, to this court.

You must be