Case ID: us-ct-cl_13/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chiee Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAIRD’S CASE.
    (10 C. Cls. R., 606; 96 U. S. R., 430.)
    Matthew Baird’s Executors, appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants’ Appeal.
    
    
      '¡The claimants bring their aetion on a- contract to indemnify thorn against all losses which they might suffer in building certain engines for the Government. They set up losses suffered by suspending work for third persons, and recover. Subsequently, they bring the present action on the same contract for losses suffered on the engines built for the Government. It appears that they presented a demand for this to the accounting officers, and.xo'ere allowed and paid by draft a reduced amount. No receipt in full was given.
    
    'The court below, without opinion, rendersjudgmentforthedefendants. The claimants appeal.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The Supreme Court now holds: (1) That the action of the accounting officers was intended as an adjustment of the amount due upon an unliquidated demand, and, being accepted as such without reservation, concludes the claimants from seeking the balance; (2) That the former action was for a part of an entire indivisible demand, and that it estops the claimants from bringing a second action for a part then omitted.
   The Chiee Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, February 25, 1878.