Case: W. FLEET STEELE, TO THE USE OF THE CORN EXCHANGE BANK, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Steele ex rel. Corn Exchange Bank v. United States
Decision Date: 1885-01-19
Docket Number: 
Citation: 20 Ct. Cl. 526
Volume: 20
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: W. FLEET STEELE, TO THE USE OF THE CORN EXCHANGE BANK, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 19, 1885.
Pages: 526–526

Head Matter:
W. FLEET STEELE, TO THE USE OF THE CORN EXCHANGE BANK, v. THE UNITED STATES.
(19 C. Cls. R., 181; 113 U. S. R., 128.)
On the claimant’s Appeal.
The claimant avers an oral contract with tlie Navy Department, whereby he was to do plumbing on a naval vessel and take old material in part payment. Subsequently a naval constructor turns over to him a quantity of old material. This he assorts and sells for ¡$9,000. The department charges it to him at $2,000 and gives him a voucher for the balance, on which he brings this action. The defendants set up a counter-claim for the full value of the old material.
The court below decides—
(1.) An oral contract made by the Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department, for work to be done on a vessel, is void under the provision requiring certain contracts to be in writing (Revised Statutes, § 3741).
(2.) A naval constructor in the Navy has no authority to turn over old material to a contractor, and his doing so confers no title.
(3.) The transfer of old material in the Navy in payment of work done or to be done, or in exchange for other material, is in effect prohibited by the provision of the Revised Statutes (§ 1541) which directs the Secretary to sell suchas “cannot be advantageously used” at public sale, and by the provision (§ 3618) which requires “ all proceeds of sales of old material” to be covered into the Treasury.

Opinion:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Justice Woods delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 19, 1885.