#### William T. Pate *v.*The United States.

*On the Proofs.*

*The clamant contracts with the government to deliver at certain points on the Ohio river a quantity of hay at a stipulated, price. The hay is delivered and in part paid for. On the payment of a portion of the amoumt to a third person not authorized to settle the account, he executes a receipt in full, notwithstanding the whole amount of the contract price of the hay has not heenpaid.*

A receipt in full given. l>y an agent not authorized to adjust a disputed account does not preclude a contractor from seeking to recover any balance that may be due on bis contract.

*Mr. V. B. Bdwards*for tbe claimant:

This is an action for bay delivered to tbe Dnited States under a contract executed by Captain D. O. De Wolf, assistant quartermaster, for and on bebalf of tbe Dnited States, and William T. Pate; said bay to be delivered at points on tbe Oblo Diver, between Bising Sun, Indiana, and Louisville, Kentucky, wbicb was furnished to and received by tbe quartermaster aforesaid, and all paid for except tbe quantity or balance of $6,904 38, as claimed in tbe petition fded.

Tbe claimant claims and proves that no part of tbe bay was damaged before or at tbe time it was delivered to tbe government agents and tbe assistant quartermaster aforesaid, in accordance witb tbe contract.

1. The proposal made by tbe claimant, and accepted by tbe assistant quartermaster, was a mutual contract between tbe parties. 1 Parsons on Contracts, page 480, (5 ed.;) 1 O. Cls. Bep., p. 194. And under tbe law tbe Dnited States were bound to pay tbe claimant for all tbe bay delivered on tbe barges, that was good, heavy, pressed timothy bay.

2. A contract between tbe Dnited States and an individual cannot be affected specially by a general law. 1 C. Cls. Bep., 383; 190, *id.*

3. Bills of lading are admissible as evidence. 1 Phillips on Evidence, 301. And a bill of lading signed, by wbicb tbe carrier acknowledged that tbe goods bad been received by \him in good order and condition, is *prima fade*evidence of that fact. 11 Pick., 43; 1 Parsons, Maritime Law, 135; D. S. Supreme *524Court, *Nelson*v. *Woodruff,*1 Black, 156; *Cleric*v. *Bardwell,*12 Howard, 272; *Ilieh*v. *Lambert,*12 Howard, 347.

And tbe burden of proof is upon tbe carrier to sbow tbat they were in a different condition than tbe one specified in tbe bill of lading. And tbe United States having become tbe carrier, made herself liable for all damage tbat might have occurred. 2 Parsons on Contracts, 175, (5 ed.)

It is a well settled principle in this country as well as England, tbat payment of part of a debt is not a satisfaction of tbe whole debt, even where tbe creditor gave a receipt in full for tbe whole demand. *(Bamsdall*v. *United*States, 2 C. 01s. It., p. 508; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 618, (5 ed.;) 2 Parsons on Contracts, 501, Note; 8 Bacon’s Aby., 291, K; *ílendrielcson*v. *Becro,*(N. Y.) 6, Bosw., 639; *Bourhe*v. Story, 4 E, D. Smith, 524"; *Bratt*v. *United States,*3 C. Cls. R. 105.)

Tbe acts of an agent are not binding upon tbe principal unless ratified by tbe principal. Tbe acts of tbe plaintiff’s agent were not ratified, while all tbe acts of tbe defendant’s agent were ratified by tbe use of tbe bay for tbe army of tbe United States.

*Mr. A. Johnston*(with whom was tbe *Assistant Attorney General)*for tbe defendants:

With regard to tbe bay, tbe United States maintain tbat their contract was not to receive bay on tbe barges, but- such bay as tbe Oakland inspector would receive and tbe quartermaster in charge would receipt for.

Tbe first contract offered in evidence bears date December 22, 1864, and fixes tbe price at $33 50 per ton. Tbe petitioner alleges a material alteration in bis favor in this contract, made January 10, 1865, advancing tbe price fifty cents per ton. No bay whatever is shown to have been delivered under tbe original contract; and tbe government allege an alteration in tbe contract as to tbe place of delivery and inspection of tbe bay, which allegation tbe facts sustain.

Milligan, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

This is an action instituted to recover a balance due tbe claimant on account of bay sold and delivered on a written *525contract, made and entered into by and between Captain D. O. DeWolf, assistant quartermaster, acting for and on bebalf of tbe United States, and the claimant.

The essential facts of the case are briefly as follows: By the contract one thousand tons of good, heavy, pressed timothy hay, (or more if required,) were to be delivered by the plaintiff on the Ohio Biver, at points between the city of Louisville and Bising Sun, Indiana, at thirty-three dollars and fifty cents per ton. The contract price appears subsequently to have been raised by the quartermaster, from $33 50 to $34 per ton; but no sufficient authority or necessity is perceived for this alteration; and we feel bound to treat the whole transaction as resting on the original contract.

The proof establishes beyond controversy the delivery of 1,279 and a fraction tons of hay on the Ohio Biver, between the points of delivery designated in the contract, in-good merchantable condition, which were received on board the United States barges and transported to Louisville.

The claimant admits in his petition the receipt of $40,360 56, and claims the sum of $6,904 38 is still due.

On the 15th of August, 1865, it appears that $12,680 98 were paid by DeWolf, the quartermaster, to one Lemuel Bledsoe, who, without authority from the claimant, receipted to the quartermaster in full. This sum of $12,680 98 is included in the $40,360 56, hereinbefore shown to have been paid.

It is not insisted by the defendants that the receipt of Bled-soe concludes the claimant; nor indeed can it be, for it is shown in the record that Bledsoe had no authority to receipt for an amount except that which he actually received, and no authority whatever was given him to settle and adjust the accounts between the parties, which appear to have been in dispute.

Besides, it is shown that DeWolf, the quartermaster, after-wards and repeatedly admitted that the receipt executed for the $12,680 98 did not cover the amount due the claimant.

The whole case is matter of account, and subject to a simple mathematical reduction.

Treating it as resting on the original contract, and the whole transaction as open to review in this investigation, it appears from the proof that the claimant delivered, according to his undertaking, 1,379£ tons of hay, which at $33 50 per ton *526amounts to $46,213 25, which, when reduced' by the amount received — $40,360 56 — leaves $5,852 69 still due.

The straw mentioned in the record and claimed by the plaintiff is not included in the contract, nor does it appear to be satisfactorily proven, and consequently we make no allowance for it.

Judgment will be entered for $5,852 69.