Skip to Highlights
Highlights

TO STEBBINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2. THE CHECK WAS FORWARDED PURSUANT TO REQUEST IN YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 1. IT IS STATED THAT YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS MADE BECAUSE MR. IN THAT CASE IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE CLAIMANT WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY "TO PRESENT. " WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY APPEARING UNDER WHICH THE ATTORNEY COULD "RECEIVE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM OR A DELIVERY OF A WARRANT FOR PAYMENT. " THAT SUCH AUTHORITY WAS NULL AND VOID BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3477. THE ACTION IN ISSUING THE WARRANT WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO THE ATTORNEY COULD BE RECALLED AND MEASURES TAKEN. THERE IS NO RECORD OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED BY YOU AUTHORIZING MR.

View Decision

B-120290, JAN. 13, 1956

TO STEBBINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2, 1955, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WHICH HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION. THE LETTER CONTAINS YOUR REQUEST THAT CHECK NO. 10,035,282 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $23,721.94 BE CANCELLED AND A NEW CHECK ISSUED AND FORWARDED TO MR. HARRELL. ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 22, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, REGARDING THE MATTER.

THE CHECK COVERED PAYMENT ON A SETTLEMENT, CERTIFICATE NO. 2264455 DATED AUGUST 18, 1955, ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT RENDERED ON JULY 11, 1955, IN THE CASE OF STEBBINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A COPARTNERSHIP COMPOSED OF BARNEY W. HARRELL AND MAE T. STEBBINS V. UNITED STATES, CIVIL NO. 6249, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. THE CHECK WAS FORWARDED PURSUANT TO REQUEST IN YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 1, 1955, TO OUR OFFICE AND TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY THAT "THE CHECK BE FORWARDED TO OUR ATTORNEY, JACK T. CONN, AMERICAN BUILDING, ADA, OKLAHOMA.'

IT IS STATED THAT YOUR PRESENT REQUEST IS MADE BECAUSE MR. CONN, WHO REPRESENTED YOU AS ATTORNEY IN SECURING THE JUDGMENT, HAS REFUSED TO DELIVER THE CHECK TO YOU. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST YOU CITE 25 OP. ATTY. GEN. 279, INVOLVING A CASE WHERE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT FORWARDED A CHECK IN PAYMENT OF A CLAIM TO THE CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEY. IN THAT CASE IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE CLAIMANT WHICH AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY "TO PRESENT, PROSECUTE AND RECOVER THE CLAIM," WAS THE ONLY AUTHORITY APPEARING UNDER WHICH THE ATTORNEY COULD "RECEIVE PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM OR A DELIVERY OF A WARRANT FOR PAYMENT; " THAT SUCH AUTHORITY WAS NULL AND VOID BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3477, REVISED STATUTES (31 U.S.C. 203; AND THAT, THEREFORE, THE ACTION IN ISSUING THE WARRANT WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO THE ATTORNEY COULD BE RECALLED AND MEASURES TAKEN, BY ISSUING A NEW WARRANT OR OTHERWISE, TO EFFECT PAYMENT TO THE CLAIMANT.

IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHILE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE REFUSAL OF MR. CONN TO DELIVER THE CHECK TO YOU MAY STEM FROM A DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND HIM REGARDING HIS FEE, THERE IS NO RECORD OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED BY YOU AUTHORIZING MR. CONN TO PRESENT, PROSECUTE, AND RECOVER THE CLAIM. THUS, THE DELIVERY OF THE CHECK TO MR. CONN WAS NOT MADE PURSUANT TO A POWER OF ATTORNEY, AS IN THE CASE CITED BY YOU. TO THE CONTRARY, IT WAS DIRECTED TO YOU AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY YOU ONLY AFTER SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION IN THAT REGARD, AS QUOTED ABOVE, HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM YOU. WHEN THE CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS IS NOT OF RECORD AND THE CLAIMANT HAS DIRECTED THAT THE CHECK IN PAYMENT OF ITS CLAIM BE FORWARDED IN CARE OF ANOTHER PERSON, IT IS THE REGULAR PRACTICE OF OUR OFFICE TO AUTHORIZE DELIVERY OF THE CHECK AS SO DIRECTED, EVEN IF IT IS KNOWN THAT SUCH PERSON IS THE CLAIMANT'S ATTORNEY. SUCH ACTION IS NOT CONTRARY TO SECTION 3477, REVISED STATUTES.

ACCORDINGLY, THERE APPEARS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR COMPLYING WITH YOUR REQUEST.

GAO Contacts