Case: FRANK CROCKER, TRUSTEE, v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Crocker v. United States
Decision Date: 1915-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 51 Ct. Cl. 484
Volume: 51
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: FRANK CROCKER, TRUSTEE, v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
FRANK CROCKER, TRUSTEE, v. THE UNITED STATES.
[49 C. cas. R., 85; 240 U. S. R., 74.]
On the plaintiff’s appeal.
The Postal Device & Lock Co. entered into a contract to furnish the Post Office Department certain satchels for a period of four years from July 1, 1902. Some time after the contract had been in force and the work partly performed, investigation developed conspiracies in the Post Office Department to de fraud the Government, and that department ceased to order satchels under the contract here involved and withheld the money then due the contract company for satchels theretofore furnished the department. This suit was brought to recover the money so retained, less the cost of satchel straps, which had not been furnished as required by the contract. The defendants interpose a plea of fraud.
The court below decides:
In order to involve the plaintiff in the admitted wrongdoings of others connected with it in the execution of the contract it must appear that it knew, either actually or constructively, of what was to be done and what was done.
Where a contractor in anywise participates in the machinations of his agents in their conspiracies with an officer of the Government to share to any extent in the profits of the company, it is estopped to assert any claim for compensation under its contract.
Acts of manifest bad faith or breaches of duty toward the corporation on the part of one of its officers are not binding upon it.
Where an agent goes beyond the scope of his authority and commits a wrong or fraud to accomplish a purpose designedly his own, the principal is not liable.
The defendants can not be charged with a default in performance due to the remissions of a duly authorized agent of the plaintiff acting within the scope of his employment. The loss must fall upon the plaintiff.
Where the contractor did not perform his contract but committed a breach thereof, such breach is not cured by an offer to make restitution after the fact.
Where a suit is predicated upon a written contract it is within the province of the court to award judgment as upon a quantum meruit.
The decision of the court below is affirmed.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Van Devanter
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 31,1916.