UNITED STATES
v.
CLYDE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In a dispute over the charter rate for a vessel used in government service, the Supreme Court held that a claimant who continued to permit his boat to remain in service after the Quartermaster-General disapproved the original charter rate and reduced compensation, then later accepted the government's offered balance and provided a receipt in full, was bound by that acceptance and could not subsequently demand additional payment. The Court reversed the Court of Claims' decision and directed dismissal of the claimant's petition, finding that his acceptance of the reduced amount constituted agreement to settle the dispute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. -Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
On the principles determined by this court in the late ease of the United States v. Child et al., ive think that the Court of Claims erred in the decision made. From the time that the order of the Quartermaster-General was made, disapproving of the charter-party and razeeing the rate for the whole period of service, the case was clearly one of dispute, at least, if not one of acquiescence on the part of the claimant. Notwithstanding this order he permitted his boat to remain in the service until the 31st of July, knowing the change of terms which the Quartermaster-General had made. It cannot be pretended that there were two lettings, or two charter-parties, of the vessel. There was only one; and as to this one the government determined to allow one rate, and the claimant insisted on another. The government stood on the order of the superior officer and insisted that this should govern the contract; the claimant insisted the contrary. Under these circumstances the final determination of the latter to take the balance of the account as made out on the basis contended for by the government, and his giving a receipt in full, is clear evidence that he agreed to take that balance in satisfaction of the claim; and this fact, under the circumstances of the case, concludes him from making any further demand.
Judgment-reversed, and the record remitted with directions to enter a decree of dismissal as to this first count in the petition.
Mr. Justice FIELD dissented from this judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…ce, 14 Wall. 535. Compare Mason v. United States, 17 Wall. 67; Piatt’s Administrator v. United States, 22 Wall. 496. In the following cases there was a receipt in full or a release. United States v. Child & Co., 12 Wall. 232; United States v. Clyde, 13 Wall. 35; Sweeny v. United States, 17 Wall. 75; Chouteau v. United States, 95 U. S. 61; Francis v. United States, 96 U. S. 354; De Arnaud v. United States, 151 U. S. 483; St. Louis, Kennett & Southeastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 267 U. S. 346. In Cairo,…
-
Ball v. Halsell, 161 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1896)
-
Nat'l Enf't Comm'n v. Slim Olson, Inc., 221 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1955)…****If the regulation in question is to be interpreted as an administrative effort to limit the statutory jurisdiction and powers of the courts, we would have the most serious doubt as to its validity, cf. Clyde v. United States, 1871, 13 Wall. 38, 20 L.Ed. 479, and the Government, representing appellants in this case, has not sought to urge that interpretation upon us.2 In any event, proper appellate practice requires that even this initial question as to jurisdiction be considered first by the tribunal a…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence