Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Opinion of the Court.

phy, 109 U. S. 238, a suit brought against a collector in 1879 to recover back duties exacted in 1871, held that the only existing authority for such a suit was to be found in the provis ions of $$ 3011 and 2931 taken together. In the opinion of this court at October term, 1875, in Barney v. Watson, 92 U. S. 449, a suit brought to recover back duties paid in March, 1864, on an importation made in December, 1863, it was suggested that the act of February 26, 1845, now § 3011, was supplied by 14 of the act of June 30, 1864, now § 2931, and was thus repealed by implication. That case, however, arose before the act of June 30, 1864, was passed, and not under it, though adjudged here after it was enacted. But the decision in Arnson v. Murphy was based on the view that §§ 3011 and 2931 coexist, and must be construed together. So, what was held in United States v. Cousinery, under the idea that § 14 of the act of June 30, 1864, was the only statute to be considered, (and the act of February 26, 1845, is not alluded to in the decision,) is of no force when $$ 3011 and 2931 are both of them to be taken into consideration, as coexisting. The same remarks apply to what was ruled, on the same basis, in United States v. Phelps.

In Watt v. United States, the suit was by the United States to recover duties liquidated in 1876 on an importation made in 1872, and there was no appeal after liquidation; and it was held that for that reason the defendant could not attack the liquidation.

Nor does anything in the decision in Westray v. United States, 18 Wall. 322, control the present case. That case had reference, it is true, to § 14 of the act of June 30, 1864, and the suit was one by the United States, on a bond given on the entry of goods for warehousing, conditioned to pay the amount of duties to be ascertained to be due and owing on the goods. The duties were afterwards liquidated. The defendants, at the trial, offered to show that the duties should have been less. The evidence was excluded, on the ground that there had been no appeal from the decision of the collector, and this court sustained the ruling.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion of the Court.

UNITED STATES v. OTIS.

OTIS v. UNITED STATES.

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Submitted December 20, 1886.- Decided January 24, 1887.

Contracts between the United States and a mail contractor, one for mail station service, and the other for mail messenger service, construed, in reference to payment for extra service.

THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Howard for the United States.

Mr. J. Coleman for Otis.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

These are appeals by both parties from a judgment rendered by the Court of Claims in favor of George K. Otis against the United States for $16,445.36. The claims of Otis are founded on two contracts for carrying the mails, on two routes, No. 6636 and No. 6635. The findings of fact by the Court of Claims, contained in the record, are set forth at length in the report of the case in 20 C. Cl. 315. Such of them as are material are as follows:

As to No. 6636. Finding No. 1. The United States advertised, March 1, 1877, by an advertisement headed "Mail Station Service, New York City," for proposals "for carrying the mails of the United States from July 1, 1877, to June 30, 1881, in the city of New York, as herein specified. Route No. 6636." The findings state that the advertisement designated the points to and from which the mails should be carried, but those points are not set forth in the findings. The advertisement then proceeded: "It is to be. understood and agreed that any increase in the service which may be

Opinion of the Court.

rendered necessary by the removal to other localities of any of the above named stations, or by any other cause, may be ordered by the Postmaster General, and shall be paid for pro rata; and, also, that compensation, pro rata, shall be deducted in case of decrease in said service, caused by any such removal or by the discontinuance of any of said stations."

Under this advertisement Otis made a written proposal "to carry the mails of the United States from July 1, 1877, to June 30, 1881, on Route No. 6636, between New York City post-office and branch offices, state of New York, under the advertisement of the Postmaster General dated March 1, 1877," for the sum of $14,900 per annum. On the 13th of April, 1877, a written contract was executed by the United States and Otis, which recited that the proposal of Otis, under said advertisement, "for the performance of the mail station service at the city of New York, in the said advertisement described," at the price and for the term above named, had been accepted, and then proceeded: "Now, therefore, the said contractor and his sureties do, jointly and severally, undertake, covenant, and agree with the United States of America to carry the mail of the United States, using such proper means therefor, and particularly the wagons hereinafter described, as may be necessary to transport the whole of said mail, whatever may be its size or weight, during the term of this contract. And any new or additional mail station service which may become necessary and be required by the Postmaster General during the term of this contract. It is further understood and agreed, that any increase in the service which may be rendered necessary by the removal to other localities of any of the above named stations, or by any other cause, may be ordered by the Postmaster General, and shall be paid for pro rata; and, also, that compensation, pro rata, shall be deducted in case of decrease in said service, caused by any such removal, or by the discontinuance of any of said stations."

Otis, while engaged in carrying the mails under this contract, and also under the contract for mail messenger service, set forth hereinafter in Finding No. 2, was directed by the postmaster in New York City to perform the following trips:

Opinion of the Court.

Eighteen round trips per week from Station E, No. 465 Eighth Avenue, to the Hudson River Railroad depot, Thirtieth Street and Tenth Avenue; six trips per week from post-office to Harlem Railroad depot, Forty-second Street and Fourth Avenue, 6.30 A.M. train. These trips were duly performed. The service between Station E and the Hudson River Railroad depot amounted to 2784 miles. The allowance therefor under said station service contract would be $657.58. The service between the post-office and the Harlem Railroad depot amounted to 2607.82 miles. The allowance therefor under said station service contract would be $615.97.

As to No. 6635. Finding No. 2. The United States advertised March 1, 1877, by an advertisement headed, "Mail Messenger Service, New York City," for proposals, "for carrying the mails of the United States between the post-office in the city of New York and the railroad stations and steamboat landings, and between the several stations where transfer service is required, from July 1, 1877, to June 30, 1881," on Route No. 6635. The advertisement then proceeded: "The following schedule shows the mail messenger and transfer service now required at New York; but the accepted bidder under this advertisement will be required to perform, without additional compensation, any and all new or additional service that may become necessary during the term of the contract, whether to and between depots and landings now established or those which may be hereafter established. Bids must be made with this distinct understanding, and must name the amount per annum for the whole service, and not by the trip. There will be no diminution of compensation on account of the discontinuance of such portions of the service as may become unnecessary during the contract term; but deductions will be made for neglect of duty.

[blocks in formation]

"Transfers. Grand Central depot to Erie Railway, 3.35 miles, six times a week; Grand Central depot to Pennsylvania Railroad, 3.55 miles, twenty-four times a week; Grand Central depot (Boston line) to Grand Central depot (New York Central and Hudson River line), .35 of a mile, as often as required. The transfer service to include the conveyance of all cases of post-office supplies for transit through the city."

Under this advertisement Otis made a written proposal “to carry the mails of the United States, from July 1, 1877, to June 30, 1881, on mail messenger route, No. 6635, between the post-office at New York City and the railroad stations and steamship landings in said city, including transfers between stations, and under the advertisement of the Postmaster General, dated March 1, 1877," for the sum of $57,900 per annum. On the 13th of April, 1877, a written contract was executed by the United States and Otis, which recited that the proposal of Otis, under said advertisement, "for the performance of the mail messenger service at the city of New York, in the said advertisement described," at the price and for the term above named, had been accepted, and then proceeded: "Now, therefore, the said contractor and his sureties do, jointly and severally, undertake, covenant, and agree with

« PrejšnjaNaprej »