Case ID: us-ct-cl_17/html/0430-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Miller", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(16 C. Cls. R., 621; 104 U. S. R., 480.)
    The United States, appellants, v. The Pacific Mail Steamship Company, appellee.
    
      On the defendants Appeal.
    
    
      The case is tried in 1878, and judgment is rendered for the claimants, no opinion being delivered by the court. (13 C. Cls. R., 581.) Both parties appeal. The judgment against the defendants is affirmed, but the Supreme Court directs this court to award judgment for an additional amount in favor of the claimant. The ease is resubmitted on an agreed statement of fad, by which it appears that one of the claimants’ steamers did not start on her trip until thirteen days after the appointed time, and that the mails were carried from Japan to Song-Kong in another and unaccepted vessel. The Postmaster-General imposes a conditional fine on the claimants for the delay, to be deducted from the judgment, if one be rendered.
    
    The court helow decides: (1) That where the former findings of this court show that a certain vessel did not start with the defendants’ mails on the appointed day, but the Supreme Court, nevertheless, held that the claimants may be entitled to recover for the voyage, that objection cannot be raised in this court on a second trial. (3) Where the contract was to carry the mails in certain acceptod vessels to Ilong-Koug, touching at Japan, the claimants carry them to Japan, and then forward them íd an unaccepted vessel, and the Post-Office Department treat the service as done wholly by an accepted vessel, the claimant is entitled to recover for the service; (3) That where the Postmaster-General orders that in case judgment be rendered in favor of the claimants, for the disputed trip of a steamship, a fine be imposed on the claimants (pursuant to authority given by the contract), the court cannot recognize the fine as existing and deduct it from the judgment.
    Judgment for the claimant. The defendants appeal.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Miller

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, January 23, 1882.