United States v. Mowry
United States v. Albert L. Mowry
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion-of the court.
This is an appeal from the Court of Claims.
The petition of Mowry sets forth that railroad cars were needed on the Pacific Railroad, in Missouri, for the transportation of men and supplies in the military department of the West, then in command of General Fremont, and that, on the 22d September, 1861, he made a contract with Chief Quartermaster McKinstry, at the head of that department under General Fremont, to construct fifty box cars and fifty platform cars, the former for- $825 each, and the latter for $700 each. These cars were afterwards constructed, approved and taken into the service of-the government.
The payment of the price on this contract was among many others within that military district, suspended upon allegations of fraud and irregularities committed therein, and a board of commissioners- appointed to investigate them and report to the Secretary of War. The petitioner presented his claim before this board, charging the contract price, amounting to $76,250. This board, after investigation, allowed to the petitioner $58,750, and gave him a voucher for that amount, the payment of which was accepted by him from the government, as provided for by an act of Congress; The Court of Claims allowed the balance of the contract price; $17,250.
The case falls within the decision of this court just rendered in the case of The United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463 . Under the circumstances the petitioner is concluded by the finding of the board and acceptance of payment.
The decree must be *565 Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickey and Mr. E. P. Norton for appellant.
Mr. R. M. Corwine, Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. J. D. McPherson for appellee.
Reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree dismissing the petition.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.