Contracts · MBE-tested

UNITED STATES v. BURTON; UNITED STATES v. GEFFROY; UNITED STATES v. HIGDON

154 U.S. 566·Supreme Court of the United States·1869

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

UNITED STATES v. BURTON. UNITED STATES v. GEFFROY. UNITED STATES v. HIGDON. APPEALS PROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Nos. 192, 193, 197. Argued March 29, SO, 31, 1869. Decided April 12, 1869. Reversed on the authority of United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, and United States v. Morgan, ante, 565. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickey and Mr. E. P. Norton for appellant. Mr. J. M. Carlisle, Mr. J. D. McPherson and Mr. R. W. Corwine for appellees. [MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Nelson] Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of the court. These are all cases of contracts made by Reeside with the claimants for the purchase of horses, under the same circumstances as stated in the case of United States v. Morgan, ante, 565, and must follow the same result. The decrees of the Court of Claims in each case must be reversed, and the causes remanded, with directions to dismiss the petitions.