SALOMON
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
Salomon sued the United States for payment for corn delivered to the government after the contractual deadline, claiming the government had either verbally agreed to extend the delivery date or had impliedly accepted the goods by receiving them and using part of the supply. The Supreme Court held that a verbal extension of a military supply contract does not violate the 1862 requirement that such contracts be in writing, and that even without a valid extension, the government's acceptance and use of the corn created an implied contract obligating it to pay the claimant's invoiced price.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
Whether we regard the delivery made in October as made under a verbal extension of the time stipulated in the original contract, or consider it as a new transaction in which the government received and took possession of the corn, and used part of it and permitted the remainder to be injured in its hands, we think the claimant is equally entitled to be paid for it.
The act of 1862, requiring contracts for military supplies to be in writing, is not infringed by the proper officer having charge of such matter, accepting delivery of such supplies after the day stipulated, nor is a verbal agreement to extend the time of performance invalid.
And if this were not so, when the quartermaster in charge receives of a person corn for the government, gives a receipt and voucher for the amount and the price, and the government uses such part of it as it wants, and suffers the remainder to decay by exposure and neglect, there is an implied contract to pay the value of such corn, which value may, in the absence of other testimony, be presumed to be the price fixed in the voucher by the quartermaster. Judgment reversed, with directions to enter a judgment for claimant for the
Amount of the said voucher.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whiteside v. United States, 93 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1876)
-
Md. Steel Co. of Baltimore Cnty. v. United States, 235 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1915)…aid contract,” — a very essential discretion which might have been embarrassed or defeated if it had not extended to what depended upon the time limit of the contract. We think the case, therefore, falls under the ruling of Salomon v. United States, 19 Wall. 17, 19-20, where it is said that “The Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 411), requiring contracts for military supplies to be in writing, is-- not infringed by the proper officer having charge of such matter, accepting delivery of such supplies after the day stipu…
-
R.R. Co. v. United States, 101 U.S. 543 (U.S. 1879)…ht against the United States in the Court of Claims, to recover for the service rendered, there could be no doubt about the right to recover, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of that court is confined to suits on contracts (Salomon v. United States, 19 Wall. 17) ; and this not alone because the service had been rendered, but because it is to be presumed that when the company commenced the transportation it had been agreed that payment should be made for what was done. 3. As to whether taxes are payable on…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence