Carmick v. United States
United States Court of Claims
•I. This contract was made in March, 1853. It was for the transportation of the mails. The parties to it were these plaintiffs, in their’ own behalf, and the Postmaster General on behalf of the United States. He had charge of that particular department, and by law (see acts March 3, 1845, and March 3, 1851) he had specific authority to make absolute contracts.. He made this contract subject only to the contingency of Congress making an appropriation to carry it into effect.
Read the full summary
•I. This contract was made in March, 1853. It was for the transportation of the mails. The parties to it were these plaintiffs, in their’ own behalf, and the Postmaster General on behalf of the United States. He had charge of that particular department, and by law (see acts March 3, 1845, and March 3, 1851) he had specific authority to make absolute contracts.. He made this contract subject only to the contingency of Congress making an appropriation to carry it into effect. Whatever may be the wording, this contingency is implied in every contract made with the government. Without this…
1Opinion of the CourtCasey, C. J.
On the 15th of February, 1853, the claimants entere,d into a contract with the Postmaster General of the United States to carry the mails from Vera Cruz, in Mexico, via Acapulco, to San Francisco, in thirteen days each way, at the sum of four hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars per annum. The contract contained the following clause:
•“ And it is hereby expressly understood that this contract is to have *133no foree or validity until it shall have the sanction of the Congress of the United States by the passage of an appropriation to carry it into effect.”
In the clause of the contract fixing-…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kendall v. United States Ex Rel. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Burchell v. MarshSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
- Kendall v. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Robertson v. M'NielNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Cope v. GilbertNew York Supreme Court · 1847
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Congress Construction Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Power v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1883
- Brice v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1896
- McKee v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1876