on November 4, 1922, was not a "first appointment in a permanent service." It was a reappointment in the permanent service. See 2 Comp. Gen. 234.
The disallowance of the claim was in accordance with the law and must be, and is, affirmed.
(A–2212)
SUBROGATION OF SURETY
Any sum in the possession of the United States accruing to a former employee whose embezzlement of Government funds has been made good by the surety on his official bond may be paid to the surety.
Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, July 2, 1924:
The Maryland Casualty Co. has submitted claim for $52.13 as the proceeds of sale of certain personal effects of Joseph A. Rose, former chief clerk and special disbursing agent, who embezzled funds of the Government in a sum in excess of $20,000.
It appears that claimant, as surety, has paid to the United States under bonds dated September 10, 1914, and August 9, 1918, the full amount of the defaulting disbursing officer's indebtedness to the Government and contends that by the payment of the amount embezzled it is subrogated to whatever rights the United States may have had to apply the proceeds of sale of the personal effects against said indebtedness.
The former disbursing clerk entered a plea of guilty to the charge of embezzlement of public funds and was sentenced on November 4, 1922, to serve two years in the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, Ga. Settlement was made by the Maryland Casualty Co., the surety on his bonds, and the accounts of the former disbursing clerk have been audited and balanced, with the aid of the payment made by the surety.
The sum of $52.13 in question represents the balance left from the sale of personal effects of the former disbursing clerk after deductions for shortages in his accounts for charts, war savings stamps, etc. It appears that the amount of $52.13 was held pending the outcome of a civil suit against the surety and that as a result of that suit it paid to the United States the amount embezzled, $22,487.65, with interest, making a total of $25,364.40. The $52.13 having been in possession of the United States at the time, the amount could properly have been allowed as a credit in the settlement with the surety for the amount of the judgment, it not being required to offset any other indebtedness to the United States, and as the accounts of the principal have been balanced and closed, the $ 52.13 is authorized to be paid to the surety. See in this connection Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U. S. 227.
