Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States
318 U.S. 363 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper it issues are governed by federal common law, not state law. The government is not barred from recovering on a forged endorsement unless it is shown that its delay in giving notice of the forgery caused actual damage to the party that accepted the check.
Facts:
- On April 28, 1936, the United States issued a check to Clair A. Barner for services rendered to the Works Progress Administration.
- The check was mailed to Barner, but he never received it.
- An unknown person obtained the check, forged Barner's signature, and presented it to a J. C. Penney Co. store in exchange for cash and merchandise.
- J. C. Penney Co. endorsed the check and transferred it to Clearfield Trust Co. for collection.
- Clearfield Trust Co. guaranteed all prior endorsements and collected the face value of the check from the United States.
- On or before May 10, 1936, Barner informed his government supervisor that he had not received the check.
- The United States did not give notice of the forgery to Clearfield Trust Co. until January 12, 1937.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States sued Clearfield Trust Co. in the U.S. District Court.
- J. C. Penney Co. intervened as a defendant.
- The District Court applied Pennsylvania law and dismissed the complaint, finding the government's unreasonable delay in giving notice barred recovery.
- The United States appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.
- Clearfield Trust Co. (petitioner) sought, and was granted, a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does state law, rather than federal law, govern the rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper that it issues?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The rights and duties of the United States on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal rather than local law. The court reasoned that the authority to issue government checks originates from the Constitution and federal statutes, not state law, so the rights and duties related to these instruments also arise from a federal source. Applying the various laws of the states would subject the government's fiscal operations to exceptional uncertainty and a lack of uniformity, which is highly undesirable. Therefore, the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins does not apply, and federal courts must fashion a uniform federal rule. The court then established a federal common law rule: a drawee's right to recover on a forged endorsement accrues at the time of payment. Unreasonable delay in giving notice of the forgery can be a defense, but only if the party that accepted the check can prove it suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the delay. In this case, Clearfield Trust Co. failed to show that the government's delay caused it any specific damage, so the United States was entitled to recover.
Analysis:
This landmark case establishes the 'Clearfield Trust doctrine,' a significant exception to the Erie doctrine's general command to apply state law in diversity cases. The decision carves out a domain for federal common law where uniquely federal interests are at stake, such as the fiscal operations of the U.S. government. By creating a uniform federal rule for government commercial paper, the Court prioritized the need for predictability and consistency in the government's nationwide financial dealings. This principle allows federal courts to fashion federal common law in other areas involving the rights and obligations of the United States, such as government contracts and property.
Unlock the full brief for Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States