Garfielde v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Citation | 23 L.Ed. 779,93 U.S. 242 |
| Parties | GARFIELDE v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
In addition to the facts set forth in the opinion of the court, the court below found that the appellant's proposal was as follows:——
'The undersigned, Selucius Garfielde, whose post-office address is Port Townsend, County of Jefferson, Territory of Washington, proposes to convey the mails of the United States from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend, and Sitka, Alaska, under the advertisement of the Postmaster-General, dated Oct. 1, 1873, in safe and suitable steamboats, 'with celerity, certainty, and security' (law of June 8, 1872), for the annual sum of $26,000.
'This proposal is made with full knowledge of the distance of the route, the weight of the mail to be carried, and all other particulars in reference to the route and service; and also after careful examination of the laws and instructions attached to advertisement of mail service.
'Dated, Port Townsend, W. T., Jan. 8, 1874.
'SELUCIUS GARFIELDE, Bidder.'
He made no proposal under the first part of the advertisement for carrying the mail between Portland, Oregon, by Port Townsend, W. T., and San Juan to Sitka, Alaska.
'WASHINGTON, D. C., March 2, 1874.
'SIR,—The Postmaster-General has accepted your proposal, under advertisement of Oct. 1, 1873, for conveying the United States mail, from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1878, on (Washington Territory) route No. 43,132, between Port Townsend and Sitka, Alaska, at $26,000 a year, 'with celerity, certainty, and security.'
'Contracts will be sent in due time to the postmaster at your place of residence, which you must execute and return to the department by the first day of June; otherwise you will be considered a failing bidder, and the service will be relet at your expense.
'You will request the postmaster at the beginning and end of the route to inform this office when you make the first trip.
'Second Assistant Postmaster-General.
'MR. SELUCIUS GARFIELDE,
'PORT TOWNSEND, JEFFERSON CO., W. T.
'Recorded and sent March __, 1874.'
And on the eighteenth day of April, 1874, Garfield was informed by telegram that his 'proposal' was suspended; and on the 30th of May, 1874, a contract was entered into between the Post-Office Department and one Otis for carrying the mails from Portland by Port Townsend and San Juan, to Sitka and back, at $34,800 per annum.
The Court of Claims dismissed the petition, whereupon Garfielde appealed here.
Mr. Ebon C. Ingersoll and Mr. B. F. Rice for the appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Smith, contra.
The Court of Claims holds that the proposal on the part of Garfielde, and the acceptance of the proposal by the department, created a contract of the same force and effect as if a formal contract had been written out and signed by the parties. Many authorities are cited to sustain the proposition. We believe it to be sound, and that it should be so held in the present case.
That court held that the contract alleged by the petitioner was invalid, for the reason that the Postmaster-General exceeded his authority in making it without the previous publication required by the act of Congress of June 8, 1872. 17 Stat. 313, sect. 243.
That act required, 'that, before making any contract for carrying the mail, . . . the Postmaster-General shall give public notice . . . such notice shall describe the route, the time at which the mail is to be made up, the time at which it is to be delivered, and the frequency of the service.'
Among the instructions issued by the authority and official sanction of the Postmaster-General are the following, which were referred to and proved or admitted by the parties at the trial:——
'SPECIAL NOTICE.—All instructions and regulations promulgated by the Postmaster-General, conformably to law, for the guidance of persons employed by the department, are entitled to the same respect and obedience as acts of Congress. . . .
'. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giustina v. United States
...successful bidder has been notified of his award, all subsequent steps being merely formal and ministerial. See Garfielde v. United States, 93 U.S. 242, 1876, 23 L.Ed. 779 and United States v. Purcell Envelope Co., 249 U.S. 313, 1919, 39 S.Ct. 300, 63 L.Ed. Defendant's contention that the c......
- Wayland v. Western Life Indemnity Company
-
Harmon v. Tanner Motor Tours of Nev., Limited
...by the Board, notwithstanding the subsequent failure to prepare and sign the contemplated formal agreement. Garfielde v. United States, 93 U.S. 242, 23 L.Ed. 779; L. G. Arnold, Inc. v. City of Hudson, 215 Wis. 5, 254 N.W. 108; cf. Micheletti v. Fugitt, 61 Nev. 478, 134 P.2d We must consider......
-
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Mason Coal, Inc.
...the successful bidder has been notified of his award, all subsequent steps being merely formal or ministerial. See Garfielde v. United States, 1876, 93 U.S. 242, 23 L.Ed. 779 and United States v. Purcell Envelope Co., 1919, 249 U.S. 313, 39 S.Ct. 300, 63 L.Ed. 620 p. 181 F.Supp. at 390. "Th......
-
The "benefit" of spying: defining the boundaries of economic espionage under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
...R.R. Co., 169 U.S. 26, 38 (1898); Cedar Rapids & Mo. River R.R. Co. v. Herring, 110 U.S. 27, 35 (1884); Garfielde v. United States, 93 U.S. 242, 245 (1876); Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 603, 610 (1870); Walton v. Cotton, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 355, 358 (116.) 169 U.S. at 38 (quotin......