Case: JOHN MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Miller v. United States
Decision Date: 1913-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 49 Ct. Cl. 685
Volume: 49
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOHN MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 685–686

Head Matter:
JOHN MILLER v. THE UNITED STATES.
[47 C. Cls. R., 146; 233 U. S. R., 1.]
On the plaintiff’s appeal.
A.contract for mail transportation in Alaska follows the postal laws and regulations in allowing the Postmaster General to discontinue or curtail the service upon allowing the contractor, as full indemnity, one month’s extra pay. By reason of unusual conditions in Alaska the contractor is compelled to make a large outlay before he begins the contract work. He does so in the expectation of continuing the service through the full contract period of four years. But the Postmaster General discontinues the service at the end of two years.
The court below decides:
I.Where the language of a contract for the transportation of the mails in Alaska is substantially the language of the postal laws and regulations, sec. 1227, it must be held that the Postmaster General had authority to discontinue the service in whole or in part, notwithstanding that the discontinuance left the contractor with his equipment upon his hands, consisting of stock, dogs, and provisions, remotely scattered, and deprived him of the profits which would have accrued if he had been permitted to continue the service.
II.The decision of the Postmaster General to discontinue a mail transportation service can not be reviewed by the courts.
III.The fact that a portion of the service discontinued was permitted to be performed by others, without first giving the contractor an opportunity to perform, can not be held an arbitrary exercise of power, inasmuch as it is the duty of the Postmaster General to discontinue a service whenever in his judgment the public interest requires it.
The demurrer of the defendants is sustained and the claimant’s petition dismissed.
The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 6, 1914.