Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-03-11

WDeIEeI TIC cSitiue'iS
| in the articles mentioned, which happen
ed by 6re, was occahoned by luch una
voidable accident as would bling it with
in the agreement.
The court below gave judgment IN
favor of the defendant, upon which, this
writ Of error was trough.
The plaintiff in error, made two
points.
IF. That under this contract the
defendant was bound in his private capa-
city.
I'd. That the matter pleaded in his plea
did not lhow the cafnalty, by which the
buildings were defroyed, to have been
inevitable.
The court gave no opinion on the I'd
point, being unanimous in favor OF the de-
PENDANT on the firh.
It appears from the pleadings that Con-
grefs had paned law authorizing and re-
curing the PreGdent to caule the public
Offices to be removed from Philadelphia
to Wilmington, in puyfuance of which
law, inRrutfions by the Prelident were
given, and the Offices belonging TO The
department Of war, were removed. That
it became necenary to provide war OF
fee, and that for this purPoie, and no
other, the agreement was entered into by
the defendant, who was then at the head
of this department. During the leaie the
building was confirmed by FIRE.
Its TOO clear TO be controverted, that
where public agent acfs in the line of his
duty, and by legal authority his contracts
made on account Of the government are
public and not perfonal, they eniae to the
benefit of, and arc obligatory .on the 60
yernmenf, and not the officer.
a contrary doctrine, would be produc-
tive ofthe mott injurious consequences to
the public, as well as to individuals. The
government is incapable of acting other
wife than by its agents, and no prudent
man would content to become pubic a.
gent, if he fhould be made perlonfally
reiponfble for contracts on the public &C
count.
This fnbjea was very fully difcuned
in the cafe of Macbeath, Us. Haldiman,
cited from If term reports, and this court
coinder the principles laid down in that
cafe as confonant TO policy, jueice, and
law.
The plaintiff has not controverted the
general principle, bu, has Unified that il
this cafe the defendant hes by the terms Of
his contract, bound himieil perfonly.
1t is admitted that the houfs was taken
on account OF the public, in purfnance OF
the proper surhority, and that the COO
tract was made by the peslon who was at
the head of the department, sor the uie of
which il was taken; nor is there any al
legation, nsr is there any reafoa to believe
that the plaintiff preferred tie private re-
fponGbility of the defendant to that of the
government, or thar he was unwilling TO
contract on the faith OF government. I'm
der theie circumstances, the intent ct the
officer to bind himfelf perfonaily, mu& be
very apparent indeed TO induce iuch con-
f(ruetion Of the contract.
The court can perceive no fuch intent
lon the contrary, the contract exhibits
every appearance of being made with a
view entirely TO the government.
The Official character of the defendant
is ftated in the delcription of the parties.
This i, has been iaid Nigh, be occaGoned
by willingness in the defendant to def
cribe himfelf by the high and honorable
Office he then filled. This unquefiona-
bly, i, pofible, but Isl not the fair conaruc-
ton TO be placed on this part of the con-
tratt, becaule it is not uiual for gentle
m.n in their private tranfaeions to ex-
| hibit ,hemielyes in their official cha
| raaer.
The tenement IS let to the iaid Samuel