The daily union., 1856-01-17

Tha, il shall he hui under the special direction Of
the President Of the United States 10 make such ad-
the dbursing officers Of The government as may
be necessary faithful and prompt discharge oi their
respective duties and e s s 's = prssain sI oS ths
United may direct such advances as he may deem
necessary and proper 70 sneh persons In the military and
naval service may bc employed on distant stations
where tho discharge Of the pay and emoluments to which
they may be entitled cannot be regularly effected This
case II u obvious does not fall within either Of the e1eep
tions Ia the sxuts because the petitioners were neither
dsbusslng officers u the government ncr persons EN-
poyed the military OF the United States
but the general enactent has direct application TO It
The contract was doubtless made with reference to tho
statute ana hssce End that II particularly specifies Whe
and for wha the payment in advance was 70 os MADE
The statute forbds advances Of public money In d cases
but In cases Of contracts for the performance of any ser
vice. or ths delivery Of articles of any description Tor the
nc ss ysss u s service Of The
articles delivered previously to such payment An ad-
d mossy on contract strictly speaking =
made before an equivalent received IL s such adv vance
that ID forbidden by this statute II distinguishes 1t will
be observed, between an advance and payment The
payment which i contemplate: y pay mena or u,,
for equivalent expected The iomer Allows mo lat
forbds Itpsescrbes three requisites 70 constitute
valid payments lst that be ment in the sense OF
the stsnle I'd that il b. made in cSse OF contract for
the performance Of service the delivery OF articles
Of some description or ths use q ne ona ssa
dered Of the articles delivered previously 70 such pay
ment. ,eftl
cOnetrucUOu
sideration, presume already indicated that
the parties only had this law in contemplation but
meant TO conform TO IT. II therefore, i he susceptible
of two constructions consistent and The other in
consistent with the sutute, the former construction
must be adopted ut IL general rule saith Lord Coke,
that whensoeve the words Of deed or Of the parties
without deed may have double intendmeni, aud the
stands,h with law and right and the other wrongful
and against law the intendmcnt that ssandcih WIN law
shall be tnkennl Coke upon it GO lThomhss Ed IN
Shore ps Wilson, C and Fin, 391 Lord Lyndhurs said
The rule Is this and Il i fair and proper rule that
niensau Csn bs placed the words and acts Of
parties you do and not unnecessarily 10 put
upon these words and acts construction directly At va
ance with what the law prohibits enoins This doc
rne is 50 mansty Ia eccordancc with the dictates OF
Justice and OF that further citation OF au
hor in support Of u cannot be Necessary Daa .ne s
which suggested by the proper Specification of the a
guags employeds entirely consistent with the require
4 mis e precisely sus he Iina IL pymepi By the
statute 1t called payment in the contract IN one
part Of the contract it spoken OF as advances 20 90
made but the direct stipulation TO make y is wll there
upon poy and advance" But Whist essentially characarxes
as payment authorized by the statute 10 that was not
to be made until after the equivalent received by the
United States 2 1t was for eervices rendered and
articles delivered the Of the United States for t
to bo made until after the bill OF lading ana po
icy Of inraucs assigned and delivered 70 the United
Ssae The articles must be regarded as delivered w nc
uss Of Ae United States because only assign
en of the bill Of iading and Of the policy OF Insurance tue
spuropriae method nndsr the circumstances of such de-
livery and interpret the contract 10 alike consistent
with in words and the provisions OF the statute out ay
otr Interpretation would render 1t volave OF the statute
3 The services rendered and the articles delivered before
the payment made may we'll be presumed to have been
considered fair equivalent for the amount Of the pay
il is therefore apparent that tho contract in this case
confornsd tho three requisites Of tho statute ALREADY
ding and Of the policy Of insurance the United States,
were equivalent and In eject delivery TO them
Of the article, which had been shipped Tnsra
for the use Of the United 0tes But delivery Of articles
for valuable cousdsraon TO the United States FOR er
se the most expressive form In which the transfer OF the
property In such articles them could be made We are
therefore, Of tho opinion that upon the assignment and DO.
livery Of tho bill Of iadng and policy Of Insurance. Ana
the receipt by the petitioners of the stipulated payment
the materials became the absolute property of the United
States. DOM
port those materials from San Francisco TO the several
places where they be used when required by the
petitioners express and unconditional Ever SINCE .ae
leading case Of Paradne Jane Aleyn, T. 267 IT has
been the settled doctrine Of the common law that where
the Law dny charge and the party s disabled
TO perform i whoS. any ds.u. IN hmm h Bas sna rSsu the
party by his contract creates duty or charge upon
himseG be il bound TO make II good II he may nowith-
standing any accident by inevitable necessity because no
might have provided against it by his contract In that
case which action Of debt for rent the deiendant
pleaded that certain German prince 6y name fLnce nv
pert an alien born enemy TO the king and kngaom
had invaded the realm with hostile army and with tho
Same force had entered upon the defendants possession
and him expelled and heid ou. Of nv es
held bad sl IS 4 s.
ssseo Of house. who covenants generally to repair,
Is bound rebuild II II be burned by an accidenai ne
Bullock Dommitt T. r., $50. On covenant 70 ouid
bridge in substantial manner and TO keep " IN repair
for certain time the party bound to rebuild me ofiog
though IL be broken down by unusual and ehuaora
nary food Brecknock Co. "a. Pritchardi =, " too,
Ia that Lord Kenyon G. j. said: The princpies
by the counsel for the plaintiffs is the true one 'ne de
PENDANTS had chosen TO except any loss OF any kind
should introduced into the contract by way OF
exception II sufcicn, say here that the contract OF
extends this that they have not iu-
filed it, and, therefore, that they answcrabie
The same doctrine 10 held In Atkinson "a htch'e, 10
East, r. $50, Barker Hodgson, Man Sci 2oi Shn-
brick Samond Burr k 1897, and In other cases IN
the Of Barker lodgson, the charierer OF snip,
who covenantsd 10 send cargo alongside, AZ toelgn
port, wM not excused from sending 1t alongside, ,nougn,
in Of the prevalence OF infectious
at the port all public Intercourse prohibited by the
law At tbe port aud though he could not have conmun
cato without danger of contracting and communicating
the disorder. In that Lord Eenborough, " - sh'u
Perhaps II In much say that the reifh,er was eo
pei liable to load his cargo; but II be was unable 70 90 W.
tb Ing s he answerable for it upon his covenant
OF the ffeghter the advcnturcr who chaks out te w
egc and is TO furnish at ali events The snelectmae oa
bf which freight ia TO accrue2 The quesnon hefo ~ -
which side the burden il 10 fall n
The law Of carriers has application 70 ens ~, ~
The United States were ia ecnyJ carriers ~. w ~
TONERS because, have revn, the mnierisns " tn
carried were the prop Atty OF Che United o@sS. -
United States undertook to Transport them 20 sue PIN,
where they 70 be nyA, and the peuuoufeas ~ ~
their part were requ red IT., send therewin, IN ", ~
vessel competent artisan and snmcen' nnnu.'