Murphy v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
Murphy entered into a written contract with the United States for excavating a portion of the pit for a dry dock, and was paid at the contract price for all the work which he performed.
He subsequently presented to the Navy Department a claim for damages suffered by reason of certain alleged violations of the contract, and for extra work. The department adopted a basis of adjustment, to which he agreed; and there was paid to him a certain sum, which, upon full information as to the principles upon which it was awarded, he accepted, and gave a receipt in full.
He some time thereafter brought suit in the court below for the same claim, adding, however, a further item, of which there was no proof.
The court dismissed the petition, and he appealed.
Mr. James W. Denver and Mr. Luther H. Pike for the appellant.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. John S. Blair for the United States.
We are clearly of the opinion that the acceptance by the claimant, without objection, of the amount allowed by the Secretary of the Navy, in his adjustment of the account presented to him, was equivalent to a final settlement and compromise of all the items of the present claim included in that account. There is nothing in the findings of the court below to warrant a judgment in favor of the claimant upon the only item included in the petition in this case which was not mentioned specifically in the account presented to the Secretary of the Navy and passed on by him in the adjustment he made.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St Louis Ry Co v. United States
...v. Morgan, 154 U. S. 565, 14 S. Ct. 1213, 19 L. Ed. 256. 4 Baird v. United States, 96 U. S. 430, 24 L. Ed. 703; Murphy v. United States, 104 U. S. 464, 26 L. Ed. 833. 5 Savage v. United States, 92 U. S. 382, 388, 23 L. Ed. 660. 6 Stewart v. Barnes, 153 U. S. 456, 14 S. Ct. 849, 38 L. Ed. 78......
-
City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
... ... Board, 52 N.Y. 89; Perry v. Cheboygan, 21 N.W ... 333; Board v. Morgan, 65 P. 41; Murphy v ... U.S. 14 Otto, 464 (5 N.W. 176); 17 Am. Dec., 118; ... Alice v. Billing, 2 Cush., 26; ... ...
-
Pope v. United States
...e.g. Nock v. United States, 1 Ct.Cl. 71; Id., 2 Ct.Cl. 451; Murphy v. United States, 14 Ct.Cl. 508; Id., 15 Ct.Cl. 217, affirmed 104 U.S. 464, 26 L.Ed. 833; Id., 35 Ct.Cl. 494; Alcock v. United States, 61 Ct.Cl. 312; Id., 74 Ct.Cl. 308; DeLuca v. United States, 69 Ct.Cl. 262, certiorari den......
-
Deal v. Federal Housing Administration
...255 U.S. 339, 41 S.Ct. 329, 65 L.Ed. 677; De Arnaud v. United States, 151 U.S. 483, 14 S.Ct. 374, 38 L.Ed. 244; Murphy v. United States, 104 U.S. 464, 26 L.Ed. 833; Baird v. United States 96 U.S. 430, 24 L.Ed. 703; Savage v. United States, 92 U.S. 382, 23 L.Ed. Northwestern further contends......