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. MORGAN, 1869 — 154 U.S. 565 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES v. MORGAN
154 U.S. 56519 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. MORGAN.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP- CLAIMS.
No. 191.
Argued March 29, 30 and 31, 1809.
Decided April 12, 1869.
Reversed on the authority of United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 405.
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. Convine for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Nelson]
Mr. Justice Nelson
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from the Court of Claims.
The petition in this case sets forth that Morgan, under a con-: tract with the government, in September, 1861, purchased five hundred and twenty-two horses, for which he was to receive $130 each; that the government has refused to pay the price according to the contract, and that a balance remains of $7830. Thi,s contract was made with the petitioner by Reeside, an agent of General Fremont, who had been authorized to purchase two thousand horses for his military department, at the price above stated.
The claim was presented to the board of commissioners appointed to' investigate contracts made in this department, and, after an examination into the claim, it was reduced $7830, the board allowing only $115 per head for the horses instead of $130, the contract price; and gave to the claimant a voucher for the amount at this rate, $60,076, payment of which was afterwards accepted by him from the government.
The Court of Claims decreed in his favor the contract price, deducting the above payment. The case falls within the decision of The United States v. Adams, and this decree must, therefore, be reversed.
The case is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.