B-120290, MAY 2, 1957

B-120290, MAY 2, 1957

TO MAE T. STEBBINS:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1957, CONCERNING TREASURY CHECK NO. 10,035,282, DATED AUGUST 29, 1955, DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF MAE T. STEBBINS AND BARNEY W. HARRELL, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,721.94. YOU REQUEST THAT THE CHECK BE CANCELED AND A NEW ONE BE ISSUED IN LIEU THEREOF TO THE PROPER PARTIES.

OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT THE CHECK WAS ISSUED BY THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ON SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 18, 1955, BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON JULY 11, 1955, IN THE CASE OF STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CO-PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF BARNEY W. HARRELL AND MAE T. STEBBINS V. THE UNITED STATES, CIVIL NO. 6249, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE IN YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 1, 1955, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND TO OUR OFFICE, THE CHECK WAS MAILED IN THE CARE OF YOUR ATTORNEY, JACK T. CONN, AMERICAN BUILDING, ADA, OKLAHOMA. THE FILE INDICATES THAT MR. CONN ACTED AS YOUR ATTORNEY IN THE REFERRED-TO LITIGATION.

OUR OFFICE HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL REQUESTS FROM MR. BARNEY W. HARRELL, YOUR PARTNER IN THE STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, REQUESTING THAT SIMILAR ACTION BE TAKEN TO CANCEL THE ORIGINAL CHECK AND TO ISSUE A SUBSTITUTE CHECK IN LIEU THEREOF. ON EACH OCCASION WE ADVISED MR. HARRELL THAT THIS ACTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN BECAUSE THE CHECK WAS MAILED TO AND RECEIVED BY MR. CONN IN ACCORDANCE WITH A REQUEST BY MR. HARRELL, AND SINCE THE REASON FOR THE REQUESTS APPEARED TO BE AN APPARENT DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PAYEES AND MR. CONN, THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT INVOLVE ITSELF IN SUCH MATTERS.

WE NOW ARE IN RECEIPT OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM SENATOR ROBERT S. KERR, ENCLOSING CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. CONN CONCERNING THE MATTER OF HIS LEGAL FEE WHICH HE HAS NOT AS YET RECEIVED. MR. CONN SAYS THAT BEFORE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE CHECK IN QUESTION, HE RECEIVED NOTICE FROM THE R. H. SIEGFRIED COMPANY OF TULSA, THAT THE COMPANY CLAIMED THE PROCEEDS BY VIRTUE OF AN ASSIGNMENT FROM THE STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. SINCE THE R. H. SIEGFRIED COMPANY AND THE STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WERE UNABLE TO AGREE AS TO THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES TO THE CHECK PROCEEDS THE FORMER COMPANY FILED AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY MAKING YOUR COMPANY AND THE LAW FIRM OF KERR, LAMBERT, CONN AND ROBERTS PARTY DEFENDANTS. SINCE BOTH THE R. H. SIEGFRIED COMPANY AND YOUR COMPANY AGREED THAT THE LEGAL FEES WERE PAYABLE FROM THE CHECK PROCEEDS, THE ABOVE -NAMED COURT DIRECTED THAT THE CHECK BE CASHED BUT BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE CHECK, THE COURT CLERK WAS DIRECTED TO ENDORSE THE NAMES OF THE PAYEES ON THE CHECK AND THE PROCEEDS WERE THEN DEPOSITED IN THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT OF THE COUNTY OF TULSA AWAITING CLEARANCE BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES.

OUR OFFICE HAS TODAY ADVISED MR. CONN AND THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY THAT THE CHECK WAS PAID ON JANUARY 23, 1957, BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT THE ATTORNEYS' FEES MAY BE PAID TO MR. CONN FROM THE PROCEEDS ON DEPOSIT IN THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT.

INASMUCH AS THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES AND THE QUESTION OF ENTITLEMENT TO THE CHECK PROCEEDS IS SQUARELY BEFORE THAT COURT, YOUR RIGHTS TO THE REMAINING CHECK PROCEEDS SHOULD BE PRESSED IN THE ABOVE-REFERRED TO COURT ACTION. IN THAT CONNECTION, SINCE THE R. H. SIEGFRIED COMPANY IS CLAIMING A RIGHT TO THE CHECK PROCEEDS BY VIRTUE OF A PURPORTED ASSIGNMENT, WE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS IN 31 U.S.C. 203 WHICH PRESCRIBE THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ASSIGNMENTS OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MUST BE MADE. THE FAILURE TO MEET SUCH REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPEAR TO RENDER ANY PURPORTED ASSIGNMENT NULL AND VOID.