Ashburner v. Parrish

• Decision Date: 21 February 1876
• Citation: 81 Pa. 52
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Ashburner <I>versus</I> Parrish <I>et al.</I>

Page 52

81 Pa. 52

Ashburner versus Parrish et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 7, 1876.

February 21, 1876.

February 7th 1876.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of January Term 1874, No 294 D. W. Sellers and C. Freeman, for plaintiff in error.—The claim was for labor in procuring a contract; this was not a meretricious procurement, but was meritorious. It was therefore not obnoxious to the Act of Congress of July 17th 1862, sect. 14, 2 Brightly's U. S. Digest 94, pl. 9. This section provides that "No contract or order or any interest therein shall be transferred by the party or parties to whom such contract or order may be given to any other party or parties; and any such transfer shall cause the annulment of the contract or order transferred, so far as the United States are concerned." * * *

The plaintiff did not claim under any transfer. Nor was he seeking to enforce any contract against the United States: Wheeler v. U. S., 5 Nott & Hunt. 504; Wanless v. U. S., 6 Id. 123.

J. R. Read and J. E. Gowen, for defendants in error.—The plaintiff shows by his bill of particulars, that the defendants were the parties in interest; he permitted himself to be used as a pretense or sham, being in the employ of defendants as a salesman, and in so doing he practised a deceit upon the agent of the United States: Tool Co. v. Norris, 2 Wall. 45.

Any legitimate labor that he performed for his employers touching their business was compensated for by the wages he received as their employee: Carr v. Chartiers Coal Co., 1 Casey 337; Wallace v. Floyd, 5 Id. 184. And if his labor was unlawful and such as was inimical to public policy, then a claim for compensation for it cannot be recognised. They also referred to Act of July 17th 1862, sect. 14, supra.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, February 21st 1876, PER CURIAM.

It is evident that this case was tried in the court below, entirely upon the claim of the plaintiff, that the contract was taken by him in behalf of the defendants, who became his sureties for its performance. They were, as he asserted, the real principals instead of the sureties, and he sought to recover from them for his services, both in procuring and executing the contract. This claim is clearly contrary to law and cannot be permitted. It was an imposition upon the United States, who were entitled to a real principal to execute the contract,...