Schaumburg v. United States
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation (District Court, W.D. Washington 1928)
- The Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe Of Oklahoma v. The Oklahoma Tax Commission (10th Cir. 1989)
- Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (10th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Heard (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1940)
- United States v. Wooten (10th Cir. 1930)
- United States v. Cantrall (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon 1910)
- United States v. Shaw (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
- Kingdom of Norway v. Federal Sugar Refining Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1923)
- Shelby County v. Bickford (Tenn. 1899)
- Moore v. Tate (Tenn. 1889)
- United States v. Wickersham (United States Circuit Courts 1882)
- Schaumburg v. United States (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania 1878)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the-court.
The judgment in this case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484. Claims for credit can be used in suits against persons indebted to the United States to reduce or extinguish the debt, but not as the foundation of a judgment' against the government. In the present case the court instructed the jury as matter of law that the plaintiff in error, from July 1, 1836, until March 24, 1845, was in the military service of the United States as a first lieutenant of dragoons or cavalry; and that he was entitled as such to credit for the pay and emoluments that accrued during that period, and this was admitted to exceed the debt sued on by the United States. The jury thereupon brought in a verdict for the defendant. Had the jury gone further and struck the balance that would be due from the United States, no judgment could have been rendered for it. Any verdict, therefore, beyond .the one actually given would have been fruitless. The court itself decided that the plaintiff in error was entitled to his pay and emoluments from July 1, 1836, to March 24, 1845. While sometimes the jury have been permitted to certify to a balance they find to be due from the government in cases of this kind, and under some circumstances it may be proper they should do so, ¿.refusal of the court to direct that it be done cannot be reviewed here.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.