Hodgson v. Dexter
Citation | 1 Cranch 345,5 U.S. 345,2 L.Ed. 130 |
Parties | HODGSON v. DEXTER |
Decision Date | 01 February 1803 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
AN action of covenant was instituted in the circuit court of the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, against the defendant, late secretary at war, by the plaintiff, who was the owner and lessor of a house in the city of Washington, and which was by him leased to the defendant, Mr. Dexter, for the purposes of the war department. The buildings were destroyed by fire, and the plaintiff claimed to recover the value of them from the defendant, in this suit. The lease was in the following words:
SAMUEL DEXTER, Seal.
JOSEPH HODGSON, Seal.
S. Lewis, Jun.
The breaches stated in the declaration were two.
1. That the defendant did not during eight months keep the premises in repair, &c. and hath not delivered up the same in good repair at the end of the time.
2. That the defendant did not keep the premises in repair, inevitable casualties excepted; but the same were destroyed by an evitable casualty, to wit, fire, which was occasioned and took place from negligence, or from the act or acts of one or more evil disposed persons.
To this declaration the defendant pleaded, That on the 8th of November 1800, the premises, against the will and without the negligence or other default of him the said Dexter, were burned and consumed by fire from some cause to him wholly unknown.
To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the defendant joined in the same.
The defendant also pleaded, 'that on the 15th of May 1800, the president of the United States, for the time then being, in pursuance of authority given to him by law, did order and direct the various offices belonging to the several executive departments of the United States, of which the department of war then was and yet is one, to be removed to the city of Washington on the 1st day of June then next ensuing; and that in obedience to the same order and direction, the various offices of the department of war aforesaid were removed to the said city of Washington on the said 1st day of June, and that thereby it became proper and necessary, that a suitable building should be hired, in which the said offices of the said department of war might be holden and kept, and for this purpose, and for no other purpose whatever, the building, mentioned in the indenture aforesaid, was, by the said indenture, leased to the said Dexter; and that, at the time of executing the writing aforesaid, he was secretary of the department of war, and in that capacity did make and execute the same, and that before the expiration of the said term of eight calendar months, viz. on the first day of January 1801, he, the said Dexter, at Washington aforesaid, resigned the office of secretary of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Utah Construction Company v. State Highway Commission
... ... against the agent or agency making such contract in behalf of ... its principal. 2 C. J. 812; 46 C. J. 1046; Hodgson v ... Dexter, 1 Cranch 345; Iron Works v. U. S ... Board, 295 F. 415. The State of Wyoming can not be sued ... without its consent. State ... ...
-
v. Scurlock
...or local government by reason of such activities shall be considered in determining the amount of the payment.' 10 See Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch 345, 362, 2 L.Ed. 130; Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 703, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1468, 93 L.Ed. 1628; Restatement, Agency, ......
-
Coyne v. U.S.
...federal officials are entitled to immunity from suit on claims based on breach of the government's agreement. See Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch 345, 363, 2 L.Ed. 130 (1803) ("It is too clear to be controverted, that where a public agent acts in the line of his duty ... his contracts made on a......
-
Providence Engineering Corporation v. Downey Shipbuilding Corporation
...the contrary appears by satisfactory evidence of an absolute and unqualified engagement to be personally liable.' See Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345, 2 L.Ed. 130; Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 148, 11 L.Ed. Jones v. Le Tombe, 3 Dall. 384, 1 L.Ed. 647; Brown v. Bradlee, 156 Mass. 28, 30 N.E. 85......