Case: Charles Francis, for the use of Nathan Myrick, appellant, v. The United States, appellees
Abbreviation: Francis ex rel. Myrick v. United States
Decision Date: 1878-02-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 13 Ct. Cl. 543
Volume: 13
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Charles Francis, for the use of Nathan Myrick, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
Judges: 
Pages: 543–544

Head Matter:
FRANCIS’S CASE.
(11 C. Cls. R., 638; 96 U. S. R., 354.)
Charles Francis, for the use of Nathan Myrick, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
On the claimant’s Appeal.
Brands enters into a contMctwith a quartermaster for the sale and delivery of wood for. a fort. He then makes a power of attorney irrevocable, authorizing Myrick to receive and sign all vouchers and draie the money thereon. Myrick performs. While cutting wood near the fort the commander orders him off the reservation. He objects, -bat complies. The wood is all delivered and paid for and receipted for in full. He claims that under the contract he was entitled to cut on the reservation, and bringshis action in the name of his principal for damages suffered in being hindered and delayed by the action of the commanding officer.
The court below holds that the power of attorney was in effect an assign ment of the, contract, in evasion of the Aet 17th July, 1802 (12 Stat. L., p. 596, § 14,-Rev. Stat., 5 3737), and that it voided the contract. Judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
The judgment of the court helow is affirmed. The Supreme Court now holds: (1) That the contract relied upon did not give the contractor the right to cut wood for the use of the fort on the reservation; (2) That the contractor having acquiesced in the order of the’ post commander and having delivered all the wood and received his pay and receipted in full therefor, the facts amount to a payment in accord and satisfaction.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Clifford
delivered tlie opinion of the Supreme Court, February 4, 1878.