United States v. Charles, 681.

Decision Date17 April 1896
Docket Number681.
Citation74 F. 142
PartiesUNITED STATES v. CHARLES et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

This suit was brought by the United States against Grovener C Charles and against his surety, Frank G. Charles, to recover damages for the nonperformance by the defendant Grovener C Charles of a contract to carry the mail from Galveston, Tex to Velasco, Tex. The post-office department advertised in the usual way, on February 1, 1890, for proposals to carry the mail over certain designated routes, among which was a certain route which appears to have been described in the advertisement as 'route Number 50,940, between Galveston and Velasco, Texas. ' The defendant Grovener C. Charles made a proposal on March 27, 1890, 'to carry the mails of the United States from July 1, 1890, to June 30, 1894, on route Number 50,940, between Galveston and Velasco, state of Texas, under the advertisement of the postmaster general dated February 1, 1890, with celerity, certainty, and security, for the sum of eleven hundred and ninety-nine (1,199) dollars per annum. ' The proposal was duly accepted, and the contract was entered into on the following 28th day of April, 1890. The first clause of the contract was as follows: 'This article of contract, made the 28th day of April, 1890, between the United States of America (acting in this behalf by the postmaster general) and Grovener C Charles, contractor, and Frank G. Charles, of Hutchinson, Kansas, and Thomas T. Taylor, of Hutchinson, Kansas, as sureties, witnesseth that whereas Grovener C. Charles has been accepted, according to law, as contractor for transporting the mail on route No. 50,940, from Galveston, Texas, to Velasco, Texas, and back, six times a week, at a schedule satisfactory to the department, at $1,199 per year for and during the term beginning the first day of July, 1890, and ending June 30, 1894: Now, therefore, the said contractor and his sureties do jointly and severally undertake, covenant, and agree with the United States of America, and do bind themselves, to carry said mail with certainty, celerity, and security. * * * ' The balance of the provisions were the usual ones found in like contracts for carrying the mail. The town, or rather village, of Velasco, was situated on the east bank of the Brazos river, near its entrance into the Gulf of Mexico. The river at that point was variously estimated by the witnesses as being from 600 feet to one mile in width. When proposals to carry the mail from Galveston to Velasco, Texas, were invited, as well as when the defendant's bid was made and accepted by the government, and the contract was entered into, there was no post office at Velasco, Tex., but this fact does not appear to have been known to the defendant. A year or more prior to that time the post office at Velasco had been removed to a town on the opposite, or west, bank of the Brazos river, which was known as 'Quintana.' The defendant began carrying the mail over the route in question about August 8, 1890, and continued to do so until about September 1st of the same year, during which period he transported the mail across the Brazos river, and delivered it at the post office in Quintana, Tex. As soon as he discovered that there was no post office at Velasco, and that the mail must be transported across the river, to be delivered at a post office, he made complaint to the post-office department, and demanded additional compensation for the increased labor and expense. This demand was not complied with by the government, whereupon the defendant abandoned the route. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Bosler v. Coble
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 1906
    ... ... 70; ... Rockefeller v. Merritt, 76 F. 909; U. S. v ... Charles, 74 F. 142; Coghlan v. Stetson, 19 F ... 727; Allen v. Hammond, 11 ... reviewable in some states before, in others after, final ... judgment in the action. (2 Cyc., 598; ... ...
  • McNeill v. Wabash Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 Mayo 1921
    ... ... 86; Hardin Grain Co. v ... Railway, 134 Mo.App. 681. (3) Whereby the negligence of ... the shipper or his agent the carrier ... Roy ... (Kan.), 170 P. 387; U. S. v. Charles, 74 F ... 142; Rogsdale v. Turner (Iowa), 120 N.W. 109; ... the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of ... Southern Express Company v. Dickson, 94 U.S ... ...
  • Cummings v. Williams
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 19 Febrero 1925
    ...kinds of contracts, including boundary agreements. 55 Am. St. Rep. 512, note; Allen v. Hammond, 11 Pet. 63, 9 L. Ed. 633; U. S. v. Charles, 74 F. 142, 20 C. C. A. 346; U. S. v. D'Olier Eng. Co. (D. C.) 215 F. 211; Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N. W. 923, 11 Am. St. Rep. 538; 9 C. J. ......
  • Newton Nat. Bank v. Newbegin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 17 Abril 1896
    ...74 F. 135 NEWTON NAT. BANK et al. v. NEWBEGIN. No. 712.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.April 17, 1896 [74 F. 136] ... C. S ... Bowman (Charles Bucher was with him on the brief), for ... plaintiffs in error ... ...
  • 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