Huse v. United States,
222 U.S. 496 (1912)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Huse v. United States, 222 U.S. 496 (1912)

Huse v. United States

No. 74

Argued November 17, 1911

Decided January 9, 1912

222 U.S. 496


A mail service contractor cannot claim that he accepted a contract under misapprehension when between the time of his proposal and its acceptance he took a temporary contract for carriage of the identical mails contracted for.

A contract for delivery of all mails at Union Station, Omaha, was properly construed by the Postmaster General as including mail delivered by three railroads not in the schedule, it appearing, however, that the mail so delivered had formerly been delivered by one of the railroads mentioned in the schedule and were included in a route specified in the contract.

A mail service contractor whose contract had been cancelled for failure to perform sued in the Court of Claims for balance due and for damages for cancellation; that court held he was not entitled to judgment for the balance due because it appeared that the contract was properly cancelled and that the government had sustained damages in excess of the balance due. In this Court, held that, as the objection that the balance due could not, in the absence of a counterclaim pleading, be offset against the damages sustained by the government had not been raised in the Court of Claims, that court rightly offset it, and the objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in this Court.

Quaere whether the rules of practice in the Court of Claims would not permit the offset to be made in absence of any pleading setting up counterclaim or offset.

44 Ct.Cl.19 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of a contract for screen-wagon mail service in Omaha, Nebraska, are stated in the opinion.

Page 222 U. S. 499

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.