Case ID: us-ct-cl_3/html/0433-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Loring, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Green M. Thompson v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      In June, 1864, proposals are issued for lids to supply leef to the forces of the United States, then stationed at Fort Smith, in the State of Arkansas. Four lids are made and opened, the lowest of which is 5.36 cents a pound, which is accepted. The bidder fails to comply with the conditions of the lid in furnishing londs and security as required in the proposals, and the acceptance of the bid is revoked.
    
    
      
      The next loioest bid, out of four, is 10 cents a -pound, which is accepted, and a contract is made at that price and complied with according to its terms. It appears that, from the condition of the country at that time, and the consequent dangers attending the fulfilment of the contract, the price of 10 cents a pound is not unreasonable.
    
    The contract of the claimant with the defendants was legally made, and leaves the defendants liable thereon to the amount thereof, although other parties may have offered to furnish the goods at a less price, their bid being defective in security, &c.
    Messrs. Chipman and Hosmer for claimants :
    I. This cause grows out of the non-payment by the Commissary General’s department of certain beef vouchers issued in pursuance of a contract regularly made.
    The propositions of law involved in this case are neither many nor abstruse. The plainest principles governing contracts will settle all we ask in the case. The contract was made by the proper officer, for a proper purpose, and in a legal manner. It was complied with by the party plaintiff, and the party defendant has had the benefit of it.
    The highest evidence of this is furnished by the vpuchers themselves, which are the voluntary certificates of the defendant that the amount in them named is due. The defendant has subsequently ratified them in the most solemn manner by making a partial payment, without in any way impeaching the contract under which they were issued. Either the plaintiff is entitled to the face of the vouchers, or he is entitled to nothing. But he has been paid a part, and it is now too late to discuss his right to the balance.
    Causes of this character have been too frequently adjudicated by this honorable court to make it other than an intrusion to elaborate the law of the case now before your honors.
    The Assistant Solicitor for the defendants:
    The claimant instituted his suit in this court by original petition, and by it seeks to recover here the sum of $27,780 15.
    The claimant, to maintain the case on his part, adduces the following instruments in evidence, to wit:
    1st. The contract entered into between Captain M. S. Adams, acting commissary of subsistence, on behalf of the United States, and the claimant.
    2d. Certain vouchers issued to claimant by said Adams for the quantity of supplies furnished by him under said contract.
    
      It also appears from tbe evidence that this contract was terminated by order of the Commissary General upon the recommendation of Colonel Haines, chief commissary at St. Louis, Missouri. The reasons assigned for the termination of this contract by the Commissary General were as follows:
    1st. Because it was believed that Captain Adams had acted corruptly and in had faith toward the United States in letting said contract.
    Sd. Because it was believed that the prices agreed to be paid by Captain Adams to the claimant were exorbitant and in excess of the market value of the article at the place furnished.
    We shall be able to show, as we believe, from the evidence, that each of these reasons were justified by the facts which have been adduced here, and are now brought to the consideration of the court.
   Loring, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The petitioner, for the benefit of Perry Puller, claims a balance of account due him from the United States, amounting to the sum of $27,780 15, and the court finds the facts to be—

1. That on the 20th day of June, 1864, at Fort Smith, in the State of Arkansas, the petitioner contracted in writing with Captain M. S. Adams, assistant commissary of subsistence of the United States military forces then stationed at Fort Smith aforesaid, to furnish the army at that frontier with fresh meat for six months at the fate of 10 cents per pound.

2. At the time the contract was made the petitioner, to assure to himself funds for the completion of the contract by him, contracted with Alexander McDonald and Perry Fuller, bankers at Fort Smith, to sell to them the vouchers he should receive at the current rates of discount at St. Louis, and also to pay them a sum of money equal in amount to one-fifth part of his profits on the contracts, in consideration of their supplying him with the money he should need.

3. That, in execution of said contract with the United States, the petitioner furnished to the army of the frontier 598,709 pounds of fresh beef and received voucher receipts therefor at the rate of 10 cents per pound, amounting to the sum of $59,870 90.

4. That the petitioner, in fulfilment of his contract with said McDonald and Fuller, and in consideration of money paid to him by them, sold and delivered to them said voucher receipts, copies of which are herewith annexed.

5. That said McDonald and Fuller have received, on said vouchers from the United States, at the rate of 5.36 cents per pound for beef delivered, $32,090 74, leaving unpaid of said contract price the sum of $27,780 15, for which this suit is brought.

. That since the delivery of said vouchers to said McDonald and Fuller they have dissolved partnership, and in the division of their assets the said vouchers were set over and accepted by said Fuller as a portion of his share of said assets, and belong to him as his individual property.

At the time the said contract was made Fort Smith was environed by the enemy in great force, and there was great difficulty and risk of loss in procuring supplies or beef cattle, and the petitioner was subjected to loss in cattle captured and driven off, while the army at Fort Smith was on greatly reduced rations and had no fresh beef except that supplied by the petitioner.

That at the time of making the contract the price for beef therein specified, though greatly in advance of prices paid at a former time, was reasonable and fair, under the circumstances then existing.

That when proposals for supplying beef advertised for were received and opened the lowest bid was made by Carlton H. Kelley at 5.36 cents per pound, and the next lowest bid out of four was that of the petitioner. The bid of said Kelley was accepted, but he said, the next day, he could not furnish the bonds and security required except by sending the bonds to Chicago for execution, and this, as the place was surrounded by the enemy and mail communications interrupted and cut off, and trains captured, might require a delay of two or three weeks, which at that time sometimes elapsed between the mails. Under these circumstances the acceptance of the bid of said Kelley was revoked and the contract was awarded to the petitioner.

And on the facts stated the court find that the contract of the petitioner with the United States was legally made; that thereon the United States are liable and the petitioner entitled to judgment for the sum of $27,780 15, to be certified in favor of Perry Fuller, for whose benefit this suit is brought.

In this case there are annexed to the record depositions used before civil and military commissions to support allegations of the United States that the price charged for the beef was fraudulently charged, and the contract made in fraudulent collusion between parties interested in it and the agent of the United States in making it. The findings of these commissions, also annexed to the record, show that the testimony was held not to substantiate the charges. We think it disproves them.