Carl Ackerlind v. United States
| Decision Date | 03 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 293,293 |
| Citation | 240 U.S. 531,60 L.Ed. 783,36 S.Ct. 438 |
| Parties | CARL U. ACKERLIND, Administrator of Erik G. Lind, Deceased, Appt., v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Thompson for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from page 532 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
The main point at issue in this case is a claim for the reformation of a contract for the transportation of coal from certain ports in the United States to Manila bay. It is demanded by the claimant upon the following facts: The terms of such contracts are settled by the Bureau of Equipment. A requisition embodying the transaction is then sent to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, which prepares a formal contract in writing in accordance with Rev. Stat. § 3744, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 6895. This section makes it the duty of the Secretaries of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior 'to cause and require every contract made by them severally on behalf of the government, or by their officers under them appointed to make such contracts, to be reduced to writing, and signed by the contracting parties.' In the present case the printed specifications upon which proposals were asked contained the clause: 'And further that in the event of a cargo arriving before the preceding cargo is discharged, twenty-four (24) hours' notice of arrival shall be given after discharge of each cargo before lay days commence in case of that next arriving.' The contractor objected to this clause upon satisfactory grounds, and it was agreed that it should be omitted. Through a clerical inadvertence, however, the clause was left in the requisition sent to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, and the contract was drawn embodying it, and signed by the contractor on March 2, 1905, without careful reading, the precise form having been settled, as we have said. This mistake was discovered upon the arrival of several vessels at Cavite, on June 17, 1905, the attention of the Bureau of Equipment was called to it, and the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts was requested to make the necessary change, on June 23. That Bureau notified the contractor that the contract was amended by the omission of the clause. The government refuses to recognize the amendment, the court of claims dismissed the claim for reformation (49 Ct. Cl. 635), and the claimant appealed to this court.
It hardly is denied and cannot be denied successfully that in a proper case reformation of a contract may be required against the United States notwithstanding the statute that we have quoted, as it may be required notwithstanding the provisions of the statute of frauds. William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. Co. v. United States, 239 U. S. 221, 230, 60 L. ed. ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 70. It is the contract that has been made through the agent authorized to make it that is to be reduced to writing, and if a clerk or some other agent makes a mistake we perceive no reason why the writing should not be made to conform to the fact. The contract is not unlawful in the preliminary stage, or even void in a strict sense, but simply not to be enforced against the United States. United States v. New York & P. R. S. S. Co. 239 U. S. 88, 60 L. ed. ——, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41. The contract is made with the principal and the several steps are to be regarded as if they all had been taken by him. Here the United States made the contract by the Bureau of Equipment, and by its mouth requested the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts to put it on paper and sign it. What the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts understood is immaterial; it simply followed the requisition of the Bureau of Equipment. There was a mistake made by a clerk in not striking out a printed clause from that requisition. It is as if a principal, after making the agreement, had taken a printed form and forgotten to draw his pen through the words. The failure of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co.
... ... bound by the holding of the Supreme Court of the United ... States in Gillespie v. State of Oklahoma, 257 U.S ... 501, 42 ... v. Harrison, 235 U.S ... 292, 35 S.Ct. 27, 59 L.Ed. 234; Ackerlind v. United ... States, 240 U.S. 531, 36 S.Ct. 438, 60 L.Ed. 783; ... ...
-
Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., Case Number: 25794
...Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 363, 56 L.Ed. 801; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292, 59 L.Ed. 234; Ackerlind v. United States, 240 U.S. 531, 60 L.Ed. 783; Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 U.S. 531, 65 L.Ed. 1076; Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 29......
-
New York Life Insurance Company v. Frank H. Kimball
... ... reports of our own State, as well as in the reports of other ... states, may be found opinions from which quotations can be ... made, as called ... Co. , 136 U.S. 287, 34 L.Ed. 408, 10 ... S.Ct. 1019; Ackerlind v. United States , 240 ... U.S. 531, 60 L.Ed. 783, 36 S.Ct. 438. For ... ...
-
Susquehanna Power Co v. State Tax Commission of Maryland, 368
...Dock Co. v. Baltimore, supra; Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U. S. 362, 32 S. Ct. 499, 56 L. Ed. 801; Ackerlind v. United States, 240 U. S. 531, 36 S. Ct. 438, 60 L. Ed. 783; Alward v. Johnson, 282 U. S. 509, 51 S. Ct. 273. 75 L. Ed. 496, decided February 24, 1931; see Choc- taw, O. &......