Case: Frank O. Kihlberg, appellant, v. The United States, appellees
Abbreviation: Kihlberg v. United States
Decision Date: 1878-12-23
Docket Number: 
Citation: 14 Ct. Cl. 582
Volume: 14
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Frank O. Kihlberg, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
Judges: 
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
(13 C. Cls. R., 148; 97 U. S. R., 398.)
Frank O. Kihlberg, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
On the claimant’s Appeal.
An Army transportation, contract provides that the trranspwtation shall he paid for according to the distance, “to be ascertained and fixed by tbe obief quartermaster.” The chief quartermaster, without actual measurement, hut hy correspondence with officers, ^-c., fixes the distance at less thorn, the air-tine distance between the places. The claimant is paid accordingly. The contrast also provides that payment shall he made on a certificate of the officer who receives the stores. In transitu, the stores lose weight hy unavoidable shrinkage and leakage. The claimant is paid at the diminished weight.
Tie court below bolds: (1) That under tbe provision of tbe contract tbe determination of tbe distance by tbe chief quartermaster was conclusive upon tbe contractor, though erroneous and less than the air-line distance between tbe terminal points of transportation; (á) That where a transportation contract, after relieving tbe contractor from responsibility for unavoidable leakage and shrinkage, provides that payment shall he made on the receiving officer’s certificate, “ stating the quantity and condition of the stores delivered,” the contractor, though without fault, cannot recover freight earnings on the quantity received hy him for transportation, hut only on the quantity delivered hy him after leakage and shrinkage. Judgment accordingly. The claimant appeals.
The judgment of the court helow is affirmed, and on precisely the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered tbe opinion of tbe Supreme Court, December 23, 1878.