Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Kendall v. United States (74 U.S. 113…

We apprehend that the doctrine has never been held, that a claim of no fixed amount, nor time, or mode of payment; a claim which has never received the assent of the person against whom it is asserted, and which remains to be settled by negotiation or suit at law, can be so assigned as to give the assignor an equitable right to prevent the original parties from compromising or adjusting the claim on any terms that may suit them.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Kendall v. United States (74 U.S. 113…

Now, the argument assumes that unless in adjusting all these important interests the United States kept in view the sum to be paid to plaintiffs, by their contract with the Indians, and provided for it, they must either make no treaty at all, or must pay their claim. It cannot be permitted that by contracting with other parties, without requiring or asking the consent of the government, any one can establish such a right to control the action of that government in making treaties or contracts.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Kendall v. United States (74 U.S. 113…

But, if we concede that the government is to be treated in the present case precisely as a private individual, it is not easy to see how that doctrine can be made to apply. The debt or fund as to which such an equitable assignment can be made, must be some recognized or definite fund or debt, in the hands of a person who admits the obligation to pay the assignor
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature