Summary

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Miltenberger v. Cooke — Opinion of the Court

Cooke was the collector of internal revenue for one of the collection districts of Mississippi. Curtis was his deputy. New Orleans was the designated place of deposit for the revenue collected. In the state of things then existing in Mississippi, it was dangerous for the collector to have money about him. He, therefore, advertised that he would receive payment of the tax upon cotton by drafts upon New Orleans. He took such drafts instead of money as a matter of safety.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Miltenberger v. Cooke — Opinion of the Court

With full knowledge of the facts they chose not to do so. The matter was one between them and their agent. The option to object belonged to the government and cannot be exercised by those who have not and could not have been injured.
The written promise of the plaintiffs in error to accept these drafts was equivalent to acceptance. No question is raised upon that subject by their counsel. After notice of the drawing of the drafts, and the sale of the cotton, they had so much money in their hands to be applied according to their engagement. There was no stipulation between them and Cooke.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature