Hugh Garland, Plaintiff In Error v. George Davis, Defendant

Decision Date01 January 1846
Citation4 How. 131,45 U.S. 131,11 L.Ed. 907
PartiesHUGH A. GARLAND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. GEORGE M. DAVIS, DEFENDANT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the county of Washington.

It was an action on the case, brought by Davis, the defendant in error, against Garland, the clerk of the House of Representatives.

The circumstances under which the suit was brought are thus set forth in the plaintiff's declaration, which was filed on the 16th of September, 1839.

'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington county, to wit:——

'Hugh A. Garland, late of said county, was attached to answer to George M. Davis, in a plea of trespass on the case, and so forth. And whereupon the said Davis, by H. M. Morfit, his attorney, complains, that whereas the House of Representatives of the United States had, at the first session of the 25th Congress, which was before the committing of the grievances herein complained of, passed a resolution that the clerk of said House be, among other things, directed to cause to be printed a ninth volume of the laws of the United States, after the manner of the eighth volume thereof; and being so directed, in pursuance of such resolution the then clerk of said House, to wit, Walter S. Franklin, in the month of July of the year 1838, at the county aforesaid, had employed the said plaintiff, and, in his capacity of clerk of said House, had agreed and contracted with said plaintiff to print a ninth volume of said laws in the manner as resolved, and to deliver from his office, as clerk of the House aforesaid, a copy of said laws to said plaintiff, to enable him to print the same, and had directed the chief clerk in the office of said clerk of the House of Representatives to prepare the said copy, and deliver the same to said plaintiff; he, the said plaintiff, in consideration thereof, had made ample arrangements, and employed the means to print the said ninth volume of said laws, and was in all respects ready and willing to print the same, after the manner as directed in said resolution, when the said Walter S. Franklin departed this life, and the said Hugh A. Garland was elected his successor as clerk of the House of Representatives aforesaid, and had charge of the laws aforesaid, from which the said ninth volume was to be printed. And the said plaintiff having the contract aforesaid, and in consideration thereof having prepared for the faithful execution of the terms thereof according to said resolution, and having also, soon after the election of said defendant as clerk aforesaid, to wit, on or about the month of December, in the year 1838, at the county aforesaid, and before the committing of the grievances herein complained of, the said defendant was notified of said subsisting contract, and of plaintiff's readiness, and willingness, and preparation to comply with the same, according to the said resolution; all of which notification of contract and preparation, as given aforesaid, the said plaintiff avers, and the said defendant was in duty bound, as clerk aforesaid, to deliver a copy of said laws to said plaintiff, in consequence and by reason of the said resolution of Congress and the said contract of said plaintiff. And he the said plaintiff afterwards, to wit, on or about the 1st day of February, 1839, at the county aforesaid, asked and demanded of said defendant, who had charge of said laws from which the said ninth volume was to be printed, as clerk of the House of Representatives aforesaid, a copy of said laws under his charge, for the purpose of printing the same according to said contract, and in the manner as directed in said resolution, and without which copy from the office of said clerk the said plaintiff could not print the said laws as directed in said resolution; that the said defendant, contriving and wrongfully and injuriously intending to injure the said plaintiff, and to deprive him of the profits, and emoluments, and advantages which he might and otherwise would have derived and acquired from the printing of said ninth volume of the laws of the United States, and of the profits, emoluments, and advantages of the said subsisting contract, well knowing that, without a copy of said laws from his said office, the plaintiff could not print the same as directed in said resolution; and the said defendant being in duty bound to deliver a copy of said laws, as clerk aforesaid, to said plaintiff, to comply with said resolution of Congress and with plaintiff's contract aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on or about the 1st day of February, 1839, at the county aforesaid, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the issuing the writ in this behalf, did wrongfully and injuriously refuse to deliver, or furnish or permit to be delivered from said office, or furnished therefrom to said plaintiff, a copy of the laws of the United States for printing the said ninth volume of said laws, as resolved in said resolution; and did also wrongfully and injuriously refuse to allow the said plaintiff to print the said ninth volume of said laws in the manner directed in said resolution, and did prevent and hinder him from printing the same. By means whereof the said George M. Davis lost the printing of said ninth volume of said laws, and the benefit of said contract; and hath been hindered and prevented from making, deriving, and having the profits, emoluments, and advantages of such printing, and of the compliance, upon his part, with the said contract, and hath also lost his time, trouble, and money, in preparations for complying with said contract; which profits, emoluments, and advantages [he] hath been so hindered from making, and time, trouble, and money he hath so lost in said preparations, were of great value, to wit, of the value of two thousand five hundred dollars, current money, and which profits and money he, the said plaintiff, might and would have had and received, but for the wrongful conduct of said defendant.'

There was another count in the declaration, setting forth the same circumstances in a different manner.

The plea was 'non assumpsit,' upon which issue was joined, and the cause went on to trial. The record, after mentioning the names of the jury, proceeded thus:——

'Who, being empanelled and sworn to say the truth in the premises, upon their oath do say, that the said defendant did assume upon himself in manner and form as the aforesaid plaintiff above against him hath complained, and they assess the damages of the said plaintiff, sustained by reason of the nonperformance of the promise and assumption aforesaid, to the sum of nineteen hundred dollars current money.'

A motion was then made in arrest of judgment for the following reasons, viz.:——

'1. Because there is no cause of action stated in the first count of the plaintiff's declaration.

'2. Ditto, as to the second count.

'3. Because there is a general verdict, and one count is bad.

'F. S. KEY, for defendant.'

This motion was overruled, and judgment entered upon the verdict.

In the course of the trial, two bills of exceptions were taken on the part of the defendant, which were as follows:——

1st Exception. 'In the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, having offered the resolution of Congress of 14th October, 1837, proved that in July, 1838, a verbal contract was made between the plaintiff and Walter Franklin, then clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, for the printing of the ninth volume of the laws of Congress, in which it was agreed that the plaintiff should do the printing thereof on the same terms as had been previously agreed with plaintiff's father, who had died some short time before, and had been paid to said plaintiff's father for the eighth volume of the laws of the United States, and was to be paid for the same at the usual Congress prices,—the printing to be executed under the superintendence and direction of Samuel Burche, chief clerk of said House of Representatives; that no minute or entry of said agreement was made in writing, among the books and papers of said Franklin's office; that it is usual and customary for the contracts made on the authority of the House to be made verbally, and the same have always been received by the House and paid for; and that the said plaintiff frequently, after the making of the said agreement, called on said Burche for the work, stating his readiness to proceed with the work, and did not receive the same, because the said Burche had not prepared the laws for publication.

'And then further proved, that the said Walter Franklin died in September, 1838, and the defendant was elected clerk of the House on the first Monday of December, 1838; that some time afterwards, in December, 1839, the said Burche, not having yet prepared the said laws for said publication, and the said plaintiff waiting as before for the same, the said Garland was informed, about the 1st of January, 1839, of the contract so as aforesaid verbally made between the said Franklin and the plaintiff, and observed that he had understood such a resolution was passed, and that such a work was to be given out for printing, and that he considered that as the agreement was a verbal one it was not binding, and that he had the right to give the contract to whom he pleased; that afterwards, in about two months from the beginning of December, 1838, he was again called upon and informed of the said contract, verbally made with the plaintiff by the said Franklin, when he said he had made an agreement or a contract with one Langtree; and that the said Garland did make such agreement with said Langtree, and ordered the work not to be given to the said plaintiff, but to be given to said Langtree to be printed, which was done accordingly, and the plaintiff thereby prevented from doing the work.

'And further proved, that said plaintiff had made considerable preparations for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Providence Engineering Corporation v. Downey Shipbuilding Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 5, 1923
    ...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. 907; Jones v. Le Tombe, 3 Dall. 384, 1 L.Ed. Brown v. Bradlee, 156 Mass. 28, 30 N.E. 85, 15 L.R.A. 509, 32 Am.St.Rep. 430; Gill v. Br......
  • McDonald v. State of Nebraska
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 19, 1900
    ...to the verdict and judgment. The Caroline v. U.S., 7 Cranch, 496, 3 L.Ed. 417; Jackson v. Ashton, 10 Pet. 480, 8 L.Ed. 898; Garland v. Davis, 4 How. 131, 11 L.Ed. 907; Stockton v. Bishop, 4 How. 155, 11 L.Ed. Conrad v. Griffey, 11 How. 480, 14 L.Ed. 835; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39, 13 L.Ed......
  • Russell v. Webb
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1910
    ... ... from Pope Circuit Court; Hugh Basham, Judge; affirmed ...           ... J. Webb, the plaintiff ... below, to recover a small triangular tract ... for a time has been in possession of defendant ... and his ancestor. The defendant is the owner ... think that the court committed prejudicial error in ... refusing to permit the witness Ed ... ...
  • Munchow v. Munchow
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 11, 1902
    ...v. Bank, 1 Pet., loc. cit. 93, 7 L. Ed. 65), while others hold that the omission is fatal if it is one of substance (Garland v. Davis, 45 U. S., loc. cit. 131, 11 L. Ed. 907). The decisions in Missouri exhibit the same discrepancy, some of the earlier treating the omission as cured by verdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT