Hume v. United States United States v. Hume
Decision Date | 16 December 1889 |
Citation | 132 U.S. 406,33 L.Ed. 393,10 S.Ct. 134 |
Parties | HUME v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. HUME |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Claimant filed his petition against the United States in the court of claims, averring that on the 9th day of August, 1883, he entered into a contract in writing with the acting secretary of the interior department for the furnishing of certain articles, constituting items in his proposal numbered 2, 9, 19, 32, 42, 56, 71, 77, 78, 79, 89, 90, 91, 97, 102, and 103, to the government hospital for the insane near Washington, at rates specified therein; that he had furnished merchandise amounting to the sum of $5,695.89, according to the prices established by the terms of the contract, and had been paid only the sum of $1,663.89, and that there was still due and owing to him the sum of $4,032, which he was entitled to recover, with interest from the 1st day of July, 1884; and that the accounting officers of the interior department had refused and neglected to pay such balance of $4,032, because, as they alleged, the price charged for item 97 in claimant's proposal was excessive, 'notwithstanding the charge therefor was based upon the amount stated in said proposal, and accepted by said defendant's officers and agents, and by them incorporated in said contract as aforesaid.' To this petition a special plea was filed February 12, 1886, on behalf of the United States, to the effect that claimant had agreed to furnish shucks to the government hospital at the rate of 60 cents per hundred weight, and entered into a written contract, to recover damages for the breach of which this suit was instituted, whereby he agreed to furnish (inter alia) shucks at the rate of 60 cents per pound; that this was a clerical error, the real contract being that shucks were to be furnished by claimant to said hospital at 60 cents per hundred weight; that, notwithstanding this, 'claimant attempts to practice a fraud against the United States in attempting to establish an allowance of the claim as made by him, and by his effort to obtain a judgment in this court upon such written contract, as if such mistake and cler cal error had not been made, and for the amount due for the shucks furnished, as expressed by mistake in said written contract.' To this special plea claimant replied, by his attorney, denying that he agreed to furnish shucks at the rate of 60 cents per hundred weight, and averring that he bid for shucks
Evidence was adduced on behalf of the United States tending to show that shucks at the time of the contract were worth from three-fifths of a cent to one cent and three-quarters per pound; that it was the custom of the government to buy shucks by the hundred weight; and that the mistake in question had occurred by reason of the word 'pounds' in the printed form not having been struck out, and 'hundred weight' inserted,—all of which evidence was objected to on behalf of the claimant.
The court of claims filed its findings of fact and conclusion of law on the 3d of May, 1886. The first finding sets forth the advertisement of the secretary of the interior for proposals for furnishing supplies to the government hospital for the insane for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, stating, among other things: 'Proposals must be made in duplicate on the forms furnished by the department.' A description of what the quality of many of the articles, not including shucks, must be, is given at length in the advertisement. The second finding contains the bids of the claimant on forms furnished by the department, the schedule attached to his proposal enumerating some 107 articles, on all but 12 of which claimant made bids. This schedule under the head of estimated quantity, enumerates the articles by pound, dozen, gross, bushel, box, ton, barrel, bale, gallon, case, quart, and sack, and the bids are carried out per pound, per dozen, per gallon, etc. The third finding gives the contract, by the terms of which the claimant agrees to furnish the items in the proposal, numbered as in the petition, and the acting secretary of the interior agrees to pay or cause to be paid on behalf of the United States the prices specified in the proposal and contract, 'for all the articles delivered and accepted,' the right being reserved to order a greater or less quantity of each. The fourth and fifth findings and conclusion of law are as follows:
The opinion of the court was delivered by RICHARDSON, C. J., (21 Ct. Cl. 328,) who, after stating the facts and pointing out that the claimant was the only bidder for shucks, says: 'At the time the contract was made shucks were worth from $12 to $35 a ton, or from 6 mills to 1 3/4 cents a pound, while the claimant was to receive nearly forty times as much as the highest value.
After citing Story, Eq. Jur. § 188; James v. Morgan, 1 Lev. 111; Baxter v. Wales, 12 Mass. 365; and Leland v. Stone, 10 Mass. 459,—the opinion thus concludes: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De La Torre v. Cashcall, Inc.
...... the 19th century, both our court and the United States Supreme Court recognized that a price ...(See Hume v. United States (1889) 132 U.S. 406, 414–415, ......
-
Biller v. S-H Opco Greenwich Bay Manor, LLC
...... Defendants, Appellants. No. 19-1865 United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. June 5, ...1986) (quoting Hume v. United States , 132 U.S. 406, 411, 10 S.Ct. ......
-
United States v. Lee Wilson & Co.
...... Whiteside v. United States, 93 U.S. 247 (23 L.Ed. 882); Moffat v. United States, 112 U.S. 24 (5. Sup.Ct. 10, 28 L.Ed. 623); Hume v. United States, . 132 U.S. 406, 414 (10 Sup.Ct. 134, 33 L.Ed. 393). The. courts can neither correct nor make surveys. The power to. do so is ......
-
United States v. Lennox Metal Manufacturing Co.
......See Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 415, 10 S.Ct. 134, 137, 33 L.Ed. 393; Scott v. United States, 12 Wall. 443, 445, 20 L.Ed. 438. . But ......
-
The Wacky World of Collision and Comprehensive Coverages: Intentional Injury and Illegal Activity Exclusions
...v. Donover Co., 261 F.2d 812, 824 (9th Cir. 1958). 130. SeeRESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 208 (1981). 131. Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 (1889). Similarly, see Lloyd v. Service Corp. of Ala., 453 So. 2d 735, 739 (Ala. 1984) and Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014, 1020 (Okla......
-
CHAPTER 1 CHOOSING BETWEEN AN HONEST BARGAIN AND NO BARGAIN: INFORMATION DISCLOSURE TO POTENTIAL LESSORS
...bargain. See infra at 14-19. [53] Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sr. 125, 28 Eng. Reprint 82 (1750). [54] Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406 (1889). [55] Piedmont & Arlington Life Insurance Co. v. Ewing, 92 U.S. 377, 380 (1876). [56] Uniform Commercial Code [hereinafter U.C.C.] §§......
-
E-contract Formation: U.s. and Eu Perspective
...senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other." Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406 (1889), quoting Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves.Sen. 125, 155, 28 Eng.Rep. 82, 100 (Ch. 1750). Today, courts generally look for both......
-
Equity as Meta-Law.
...(contrasting legal and equitable fraud). (331.) (1750) 28 Eng. Rep. 82, 100, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, 155-56; see also Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406,411 (1889) (drawing on the Janssen taxonomy); YOUNG, CROFT & SMITH, supra note 236, [section] 5.30 (summarizing the Janssen (332.) See supra......