Porter v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters1 statement of the case : The court found the following facts : In February, 1867, when the contract was executed, the troops-at Fort Phil Kearney and in its vicinity needed forage, and the contract was made to supply an exigency thus existing, and which did not admit of the delay of advertising proposals.
Read the full summary
The Reporters1 statement of the case : The court found the following facts : In February, 1867, when the contract was executed, the troops-at Fort Phil Kearney and in its vicinity needed forage, and the contract was made to supply an exigency thus existing, and which did not admit of the delay of advertising proposals. Oju the 25th of February, 1867, the petitioner, by letter dated on that day, at Fort Laramie, Dak., requested that an escort might be in readiness by the 28th instant, of such numbers as General Palmer might deem sufficient, to accompany and protect a train of fifty-two wagons,…
1Opinion of the CourtLoring-, J.
The petitioner in this case claims—
1st..For the delays to which he was subjected in waiting for an escort the amount stipulated in the contract of $10 per day for each team of his train.
2d. For the loss of his oxen and a mule captured and killed by the Indians.
It was objected by the defendants that the contract was void,, because not according to the statute of 1861 or that of 1864. We think the contract was not affected by the latter statute and was authorized by the former, for it was for supplies required for a military post in an exigency which did not admit of the delay of advertising…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McKee v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1876