Skip to main content

A-40187, JANUARY 20, 1932, 11 COMP. GEN. 278

A-40187 Jan 20, 1932
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WILL OFFER NO OBJECTION TO THE RENTAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSIGNEE. IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONSULAR BUILDING HAS INFORMED THE CONSULATE GENERAL THAT RENTAL FOR SAID BUILDING FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1. YOU REQUEST TO BE ADVISED WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF THE BANK OF ATHENS COVERING RENT FOR SUCH PERIOD WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THIS OFFICE. THE NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS NOT DISCLOSED. IT IS ASSUMED THAT TITLE TO THE PREMISES HERE IN QUESTION IS STILL VESTED IN THE PRINCIPAL WITH WHOM THE LEASE WAS NEGOTIATED. UNLESS THEY ARE FREELY MADE AND EXECUTED IN THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES. IS PROHIBITED BY SECTIONS 3477 AND 3737. AS WAS STATED IN BAILEY V.

View Decision

A-40187, JANUARY 20, 1932, 11 COMP. GEN. 278

LEASES - PAYMENT OF RENT TO AGENTS OF LESSOR UPON THE FILING IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE OF PROPER EVIDENCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT BY THE LESSOR OF RENT OF CONSULAR QUARTERS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND OF THE LESSOR'S REQUEST THAT PAYMENT OF RENT BE MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE, THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WILL OFFER NO OBJECTION TO THE RENTAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSIGNEE.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, JANUARY 20, 1932:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 30, 1931, FA 125.3351/71, INCLOSING COPY OF DISPATCH NO. 7248, DATED DECEMBER 2, 1931, FROM THE AMERICAN CONSUL AT ISTANBUL, TURKEY, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE CONSULAR BUILDING HAS INFORMED THE CONSULATE GENERAL THAT RENTAL FOR SAID BUILDING FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1932, TO JUNE 30, 1933, HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE BANK OF ATHENS AND THAT THE CONSULATE GENERAL HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE PROPRIETOR TO PAY RENTAL FOR SAID QUARTERS TO THE BANK OF ATHENS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, YOU REQUEST TO BE ADVISED WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF THE BANK OF ATHENS COVERING RENT FOR SUCH PERIOD WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO THIS OFFICE.

THE NATURE OF THE ASSIGNMENT IS NOT DISCLOSED. HOWEVER, IT IS ASSUMED THAT TITLE TO THE PREMISES HERE IN QUESTION IS STILL VESTED IN THE PRINCIPAL WITH WHOM THE LEASE WAS NEGOTIATED.

SECTION 3477, REVISED STATUTES, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

ALL TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENT MADE OF ANY CLAIM UPON THE UNITED STATES, OR OF ANY PART OR SHARE THEREOF, OR INTEREST THEREIN, WHETHER ABSOLUTE OR CONDITIONAL, AND WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONSIDERATION THEREFOR, AND ALL POWERS OF ATTORNEY, ORDERS, OR OTHER AUTHORITIES FOR RECEIVING PAYMENT OF ANY SUCH CLAIM, OR OF ANY PART OR SHARE THEREOF, SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY NULL AND VOID, UNLESS THEY ARE FREELY MADE AND EXECUTED IN THE PRESENCE OF AT LEAST TWO ATTESTING WITNESSES, AFTER THE ALLOWANCE OF SUCH A CLAIM, THE ASCERTAINMENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE, AND THE ISSUING OF A WARRANT FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. SUCH TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY MUST RECITE THE WARRANT FOR PAYMENT, AND MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PERSON MAKING THEM, BEFORE AN OFFICER HAVING AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF DEEDS, AND SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE OFFICER; AND IT MUST APPEAR BY THE CERTIFICATE THAT THE OFFICER, AT THE TIME OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, READ AND FULLY EXPLAINED THE TRANSFER ASSIGNMENT, OR WARRANT OF ATTORNEY TO THE PERSON ACKNOWLEDGING THE SAME.

GENERALLY, THE ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF ALL MANNER OF CLAIMS AGAINST, OR CONTRACTS WITH THE UNITED STATES, IS PROHIBITED BY SECTIONS 3477 AND 3737, REVISED STATUTES. BALL V. HALSELL, 161 U.S. 72; HITCHCOCK V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 227; 6 COMP. DEC. 88; 9 ID. 611; 12 ID. 267; 6 COMP. GEN. 625; 4 ID. 361; AND 5 ID. 749. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF A LEASE DOES NOT CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3737, REVISED STATUTES. FREEDMAN'S SAVING AND TRUST COMPANY V. SHEPHERD, 127 U.S. 494, 505.

THE OBJECT OF SECTION 3477, REVISED STATUTES, AS WAS STATED IN BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 109, U.S. 432, WAS TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE CLAIMANT, AND TO PREVENT FRAUD UPON THE TREASURY. SEE, ALSO,GOODMAN V. NIBLACK, 102 U.S. 556, 560; PRICE V. FORREST, 173 U.S. 410, AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A RECEIPT BY AN ASSIGNEE IS A GOOD ACQUITTANCE. MCKNIGHT V. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 179; LOPEZ V. UNITED STATES, 24 CT.CLS. 84; AND BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 109 U.S. 432. ACCORDINGLY, THIS OFFICE WILL OFFER NO OBJECTION TO A RECEIPT BY THE BANK OF ATHENS FOR RENT FOR THE QUARTERS HERE INVOLVED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1933 IF THERE BE FILED IN THIS OFFICE PROPER EVIDENCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT AND OF THE LESSOR'S REQUEST THAT PAYMENTS OF THE RENT BE MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs