obeyedCa: CROSS v. UNITED STATES
(United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit,1946)
336 F. 2d 431
越州天湖Parties: Mr. Paul A. Freund, of , Washington D.C., for respondent.(The United States)
Mr. Roswell Dean Pine, Jr., of New York City, for petitioners. (Clearfield Trust Company)
Proc. Hist.: The United States sued to Clearfield Trust Company for damages. Ct below decided against the United States. Clearfield Trust Company appealed.
高效激励Facts: ·The check was issued, transferred snd cashed in Pennsylvania.
·The federal government managed the issuance of the check in the ca.
西湖边Issue: Whether the rights of the parties should be determined by the law of Pennsylvania?
Holding: No.
1999年什么命
实用艺术Rule: The rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal rather than local law.
家风故事200字
投资顾问Reasoning: When the United States disburs its funds or pays its debts, it is exercising a constitutional function or power. This check was issued for rvices performed under the Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 115, 15 U.S.C.A. 721-728. The authority to issue the check had its origin in the Constitution and the statutes of the United States and was in no way dependent on the laws of Pennsylvania or of any other state. The issuance of commercial paper by the United States is on a vast scale and transactions in that paper from issuance to payment will commonly occur in veral states. The application of state law, even without the conflict of laws rules of the forum, would subject the rights and duties of the United States to exceptional uncertainty. It would lead to great diversity in results by making identical transactions subject to the vagaries of the laws of the veral states.
Judgement: Affirmed.
