#### H. R. HOOTON, ADMINISTEATOE OF THE ESTATE OF H. H. HOOTON, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES.

[No. 33856.

Decided November 12, 1923.]

*On the Proofs.*

*Contract, Post Office; jurisdiction.*— The Postmaster General has exclusive jurisdiction of the readjustment of the compensation of star-route and screen-wagon contractors under the act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 558, and the court, without a clear abuse of his official discretion, has no jurisdiction to consider a claim growing out of such readjustment.

*Same; annual rate of pay; increase and decrease.*— Where a contract to carry the mails provides for a stated annual rate of pay and also that for increases or decreases in the service required the pay of the contractor shall be increased or decreased at the rate per mile of travel agreed to be paid under his contract, and he receives the orders of the department making such increase or decrease without objection, and also receives his monthly pay in accordance therewith without protest, he is not entitled to recover at the rate of the annual pay specified in his contract.

*The Reporter’s*statement of tbe case:

*Mr. Benjamin Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Mr. Joseph Stewart,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett,*for the defendant. *Mr. George S. Foster*was on the brief.

The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Pennsylvania and resides in the city of Pittsburgh. He is the administrator of the estate of his father, H. H. Hooton, who also lived in the city of Pittsburgh and died there in the month of October, 1913.

II. On February 27, 1909, H. H. Hooton entered into a contract with the United States by which he agreed to carry the mails in the city of Pittsburgh by screen-wagon service. A copy of said contract, marked “Exhibit A,” is filed with the petition of the plaintiff and is made a part hereof by reference.

*640To meet the requirements of the act of August 24, 1912, with respect to the readjustment of compensation on screen-wagon routes because of increase in the weight of parcel-post matter after the establishment of the Parcel Post System, the Postmaster General required PI. IP. Hooton, the contractor, on July 19, 1913, to furnish to the Post Office Department information with respect to any additional expense incurred in performing the service as a direct result of the adoption of the Parcel Post System. This information was furnished by the contractor. The postmaster at Pittsburgh also furnished information as to the weights of mail on the route of said contractor during the months of October and November, 1912, and March and April, 1913. Upon the state of facts so furnished him the Postmaster General found that the contractor was entitled to $2,640 additional pay for the period from January 1 to June 10, 1913. An order was made and issued directing that the contractor be paid the said sum of $2,640, and he was paid said sum, which he received in full compensation and without protest.

There is no evidence that the contractor was entitled to receive a larger sum for the service performed by him.

III. On May 28, 1913, the said H. H. Hooton entered into a contract with the United States, whereby he agreed to carry the mail in the city of Pittsburgh by screen-wagon service. A copy of said contract marked “Exhibit B” is filed with the petition of the plaintiff, and is made a part hereof by reference.

Among other things the contract provided as follows:

*“Provided,*That for any increase or decrease in the service authorized by the Second Assistant Postmaster General, the pay of the contractor shall be increased or decreased, as the case may be, at the rate per mile of travel agreed to be paid for service under this contract, as shown by the annual miles of travel based on the frequency and distances shown in the schedule of service for said route in said advertisement.”

1Y. During the term of the contract various orders were made by the Postmaster General making changes in the service required, as provided for in the contract, stating in each case the increase in the annual travel of miles required *641and the pay per annum therefor on the pro rata basis of the original contract prices, as provided for under the contract. Payments were made in full by the United States to the contractor and to the plaintiff, his administrator, in accordance with the terms of said orders. Such payments from July 1, 1913, until the contract was terminated by order of the Postmaster General on October 31, 1916, including allowance for a month’s extra pay for discontinuance, aggregated the sum of $162,326.60. This amount was received by the contractor and the plaintiff, his administrator, without protest or claim for additional compensation.

If the plaintiff had been entitled to receive the annual rate of $50,522.84 without regard to the increase or decrease in the service provided for in the contract, he would have been paid the sum of $171,706.70 instead of the sum of $162,326.60.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

As to the claim of the plaintiff for additional pay for carrying the mail under the contract of February 27, 1909, it is only necessary to refer to the decision of this court in the case of *Halstead*v. *United*States, 55 C. C. 317, where it is held that the Postmaster General has exclusive jurisdiction to readjust the compensation of star-route and screen-wagon contractors under the act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 558, establishing the Parcel Post System.

The plaintiff is not entitled to recover upon his claim that the contract was upon a flat-rate basis and not a mileage basis, and that he was entitled to be paid for service at the annual rate named regardless of the variation in the service required and regardless of the terms of the contract that the pay should be increased or decreased in accordance with the conditions of performance. The contract under which the service was undertaken provided specifically—

> “ That for any increase or decrease in the service authorized, the pay of the contractor shall be increased or decreased, as the case may be, at the rate per mile of travel agreed to be paid for service under this contract as shown by the annual miles of travel based on the frequency and *642distances shown in the schedule of service for said route in said advertisement.”

The contractor was paid monthly and received the pay without objection. The various orders of the department increasing or decreasing mileage were received by the contractor, and no objection was made by him. He is bound by contract, and it does not appear that the payments made to him were not just and strictly in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The petition is dismissed.