Summary

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne McKnight v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Although the petitioners had no claim against the United States, they had a valid claim against Hart. The money was received in payment of his debt, and discharged it to that extent. He is estopped by his receipt from setting up any claim against the government. It does not appear that he has ever complained. Under the circumstances, it is quite clear that if the controversy were between private parties, there could be no recovery.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne McKnight v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The sum of $30,675.68 was awarded by the proper accounting officers to McKnight & Richardson, as assignees of Simeon Hart, a government contractor, for furnishing army supplies. The assignment was made by parol, and the delivery to the assignees of a receipt signed by Hart, with a blank for the amount that might be paid by the United States, to be filled in accordingly. Upon the allowance of the claim as stated a treasury warrant was issued to McKnight & Richardson for $21,675.68.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature