The doctrine of
United States v.
Clyde, 13 Wall. 35, of
Mason v. United States,
supra, p.
84 U. S. 67, and of
other cases affirmed, and the doctrine redeclared and applied that
where a claim is disputed by the government, and the claimant
accepts a certain sum in settlement thereof and gives a receipt in
full therefor, it is a bar to a subsequent action in the Court of
Claims for any residue asserted to be due.
One Sweeny, owner of a steamer, chartered her at Louisville,
March 3, 1863, to the United States (the assistant quartermaster of
the military department where she was signing the charter party in
behalf of the government), at $175 per day, no term of service
being specified. On the 10th, the
per diem was increased,
in writing, to $200, and was
Page 84 U. S. 76
so paid till the 20th March. In that month she was ordered and
went into another military department, and came under the control
of an assistant quartermaster at St. Louis, Captain Parsons, under
whose control she remained till the 17th of September, when she was
discharged.
It was not conceded by Captain Parsons that the steamer was
retained in the service under the charter party. On the contrary,
her account was stated by him on the 15th of September, 1863
(running from the 21st of March to the 31st of July, 1863), at $140
a day. This account was paid by him and receipted for by the owner
of the boat on the 22d of October following. Subsequent accounts
for subsequent services were also stated and paid by Captain
Parsons and receipted for by the owners of the boat, none of which
accounts or receipts referred in terms to any charter party. The
owner remonstrated at the rate allowed, and, on the 19th of
December, 1863, a settlement was made with him by Captain Parsons
by allowing to him, from the 21st of March to the 31st of August,
$5 per day, which amount was received and receipted for by the
claimant,
"as in full of the above account," being the account
for the steamer's services.
But no release under seal was executed by the claimant, nor was
any other consideration given by the government than that expressed
of $5 per day for the term named.
Sweeny now filed a petition in the Court of Claims asking for
compensation at the charter rate of $200 per day for the one
hundred and eighty-one days between the 20th of March and the 17th
of September.
The Court of Claims dismissed the petition on the ground that
the demand of the claimant was a doubtful and disputed claim, which
might be the subject of a valid parol compromise, and that the
payment of the $5 a day for the term named constituted a valid and
binding compromise which barred the claimant's action. From this
action of the Court of Claims the owner of the vessel appealed.
Page 84 U. S. 177
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
Claims against the United States which are disputed by the
officers authorized to adjust such accounts may be compromised, and
if the claimant voluntarily enters into such a compromise and
accepts a smaller sum than the claim and executes a discharge in
full for the whole claim, he is bound by the adjustment and cannot
sue for what he voluntarily relinquished.
Sweeny was the owner of the steamer
Ben. Franklin, and
on the 3d of March, 1863, he chartered the steamer to the United
States for $170 per day, the charter party being signed by the
owner of the steamer and an assistant quartermaster, without any
stipulation as to the term of service. He complained of the rate
allowed and subsequently applied for an increase, and the
quartermaster at St. Louis directed that the steamer should be
allowed $200 per day, by an endorsement on the application. She
continued under the first contract and was borne upon the returns
of the assistant quartermaster for the months of March and April
following, but the claimant was only paid at that rate up to the
20th of March, and the steamer was not borne upon the returns of
the assistant quartermaster after April of that year. He ordered
her to proceed to Milliken's Bend in the Mississippi River, and in
so doing she passed within the limits of another military
department and came under the control of another assistant
quartermaster, where she remained until the 17th of September
following, when she was discharged.
It was denied by the assistant quartermaster that the steamer
was retained in service under the original charter party, and he
stated the account for her services from the 21st of March to the
31st of July, at $140 per day, which was regularly paid by the
assistant quartermaster and was duly receipted for by the claimant,
and it appears that none of those accounts or receipts makes any
reference to the charter party.
Complaint was made by the owner of the steamer that
Page 84 U. S. 78
the compensation allowed was insufficient, and the assistant
quartermaster, on the 19th of December of that year, made a
settlement with the claimant and increased the allowance to $145
per day, and the finding of the Court of Claims shows that the
account made out in that way was received and receipted by the
claimant "as in full of the above account," being the account made
out in that way for the services of the steamer.
Enough appears to satisfy the Court that the charter party was
superseded and that the claim was in fact for a
quantum
meruit, and as such that it was the proper subject of
compromise within the principle adopted and applied in the case of
Mason v. United States, decided at the present term.
* Prior to the
adjustment the sum allowed was $140 per day, but that allowance was
not satisfactory to the claimant, and the assistant quartermaster,
as matter of compromise, agreed to add $5 per day in addition to
that allowance, and the claimant having accepted the offer,
received the money, and executed a discharge in full of the claim,
cannot prosecute a suit in the Court of Claims for what he
voluntarily relinquished in the compromise.
Parties may adjust their own disputes, and when they do so
voluntarily and understandingly, no appeal lies to the courts to
review their mutual decision.
Decree affirmed.
*
See supra, the preceding case.
