Case: Henry Kellogg, Appellant, v. The United States, Appellees
Abbreviation: Kellogg v. United States
Decision Date: 1871-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 7 Ct. Cl. 56
Volume: 7
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Henry Kellogg, Appellant, v. The United States, Appellees.
Judges: 
Pages: 56–58

Head Matter:
(1 Court of Claims R., p. 310; 7 Wallace R., p. 361.)
Henry Kellogg, Appellant, v. The United States, Appellees.
On the elaimanfs Appeal.
Congress authorize the Secretara of the Treasury to settle with all the parties interested in a contract for furnishing .bride for the Washington Aqueduct, provided that they first surrender to the United States the brick made, the machinery, <fo., Joint Resolution March 3, 1857, (11 Stat. L., p. 256.) The claimant is not a party to the contract, but the agent of the sureties thei-eto. Reunites with the parties representing the original contractors in such surrender. The Secretary makes an award and pays the amou/nt thereof to the representatives of the original contractors, they being the sureties thei'eof. The claimant raises nor objection, and recovers through these parties a portion of the award, which he accepts under protest. Se brings his action, claiming that he was the owner of the brick-yard; that the award toas not according to the submission, and that he is entitled to recover the damages, losses, cf-c., sustained. The Court of Claims decides that an award is an entire thing, which cannot be affirmed in part and disaffirmed in part; and that where one accepts a benefit under an award, he is estopped from denying its validity, and it is immaterial whether the award was made according to the submission or not.
I. Where a contract by its terms cannot he “ sublet or assigned,” one who has agreed with the sureties, on default of their principals, to carry out the contract, receive the consideration and allow to the sureties a percentage thereof, is not a party “interested therein,” hut merely the “agent, attorney in fact, or employe” of the sureties.
II. Where a private act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to settle “ with all the parties respectively interested” in a certain contract for their loss incurred “on account of their contract,” on condition that they shall first surrender all the brick made, with all the machinery, &c., prepared for executing the contract; and the Secretary makes an award in favor of the contractors, or their legal representatives, hut refuses to apportion any part of the award in favor of a person who has heen employed to carryout the contract, his award is in strict accordance with the private act; and the agent has no redress against the Government, though ho was to receive the consideration of the contract for his services, and though he united in the surrender of hriek, machinery, &c., in his possession, to the Government, according to the berms of the private act.
Messrs. Carlisle <& McPherson for the appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Talbot opposed.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Grier
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimant has not shown that he was ever known or recognized by the United States as one of the parties to, or as interested in, the contract made by Captain Meigs, on behalf of the United States, for furnishing bricks for the construction of the Washington Aqueduct. The contract provides that it should not be sublet or assigned.
The petition shows that the claimant was acting under a con-' tract with Mechlin & Alexander, (who were the sureties for the fulfilment of the contract of Degges & Smith,) and not under a contract with the United States, and was recognized only as agent, attorney-in-fact, or employé of the sureties; and that under the resolution of Congress approved March 3, 1857, by which the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to settle with all the parties, respectively, in the contract, the claimant was not included, because he was no party to it, either originally or by substitution.
The award made by the Secretary of the Treasury, and the payment of the money under it, were in strict accordance with the provisions of the resolution. The Secretary properly declined to settle the account between Mechlin and Alexander as to how the money so paid should be divided between them and their agent. Of this sum the petitioner received $10,476.90, which he accepted, u under protest " which could only mean saving his right to importune Congress or the Court of Claims for more. This has sometimes proved a valuable privilege. But something more is necessary to recover in a court of justice.
The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.