United States v. McCoy
Headline: Allows certified Post Office accounts and official telegram copies as proof, letting the Government use those records to show a mail contractor abandoned his route and recover costs.
Holding: The Court held that certified Post Office accounts, copies of telegrams, and the Postmaster General’s official finding can be admitted as prima facie evidence that a postal contractor abandoned his contract, supporting the Government’s claim.
- Allows Post Office certified accounts to prove amount owed by contractors
- Permits copies of official telegrams as admissible evidence when objections are waived
- Makes it easier for the Government to recover costs after contractor abandonment
Summary
Background
This dispute involved the Government and McCoy, a contractor who ran a postal route. The Postmaster at San Francisco sent telegram reports and the Postmaster General issued a formal finding that McCoy was a failing contractor. The Post Office Department’s auditor produced a certified account showing payments for temporary service made after McCoy’s alleged default on May 5, 1893. At trial, copies of the telegrams and the certified account were offered as evidence, and an objection that the telegrams were only copies was not pressed in court.
Reasoning
The main question was whether the certified accounting records and the official telegram reports and finding could be used as prima facie proof that McCoy abandoned his contract. The Court looked to statutory provisions that allow certified departmental records and to prior decisions recognizing official reports made in the regular course of duty. The Court held the certified account fell squarely within the statute and that the Postmaster General’s finding, supported by the San Francisco postmaster’s telegrams, was competent to create a prima facie case. Because the objection to the telegram copies was not insisted on at trial, that objection was waived.
Real world impact
The decision means the Government may rely on certified Post Office records and official reports to show a contractor’s default and amount owed. The Court reversed the lower courts’ judgments and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling, so the matter continues under the trial court with that evidentiary finding in place.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?