Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. MOWRY, 1869 — 154 U.S. 564 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES v. MOWRY
154 U.S. 56419 L. Ed. 256·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. MOWRY.
APPEAL erom the court oe claims.
No. 186.
Argued March 29, 30 and 31, 1869.
Decided April 12, 1869.
United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, followed.
The casé is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Nelson]
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
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.