Battelle v. United States

8 Ct. Cl. 295
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedDecember 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 Ct. Cl. 295 (Battelle v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Battelle v. United States, 8 Ct. Cl. 295 (cc 1872).

Opinions

Loring, J.,

delivered the opinion of tie court:

By the contract made between Captain Mackenzie, on the part of the United States, and the petitioners, on February 1, 1862, at Cumberland, the petitioners were to supply Lander’s division, then at Camp Kelly, near Cumberland, and any other troops that might be attached thereto, “ with fresh beef, in quarters, in such quantities as might from time to time be required, not oftener than five times a week, for 6J cents per pound.”

And Battelle and Evans were to accompany the expedition then contemplated with one hundred head of beef-cattle, more or less, as might be required, and with ox-teams, wagons, horses, •&c.j and if any beef-cattle were lost by the way, notwithstanding due care and diligence on the part of Battelle and Evans, the United States were to pay such portion of the loss as might be agreed upon. And 1 cent per pound additional to the 6-]-cents specified was to be allowed for the difficulties of the forward movement while those difficulties continued.

The contract thus related to “ Zander’s division and such troops as might he attached thereto,” and though this did not specify the number of men, it indicated generally the body of troops of a division commander, for the supply of which the contractors were to make their preparations.

The contract referred to a contemplated movement of the forces it specified, without indicating what that movement was to be. It was undoubtedly known to the contracting parties at the time, and is shown by the subsequent movements. When Lander’s division first moved does not precisely appear, but the [302]*302bistory of tbe war in Virginia shows he had moved southerly down the valley from Cumberland to Moorfield, and captured that place, before the 11th of February, 1802.

Subsequently General Lander, on account of ill-health, resigned his command, and was succeeded in it by General Shields, and under him the division formed a part of the Fifth Army Corps, under General Banks, on the eastern side of the mountain, and on the 22d of March it fought and won the battle of Winchester, having been left there by General Banks, who, with the rest of his command, had marched southerly to Sfcras-burgh and Harrisonburgh. ■ On the 15th of May General Shields’s division was detached from the corps of General Banks and ordered to join the forces of General McDowell at Fred-ericksburgh, on the Iiappahannock Biver, and marched from the valley of the Shenandoah easterly for that purpose.

About May 1,1862, Captain Mackenzie, who had made the contract of February 1,1862, with the petitioners for Lander’s division, was ordered from Cumberland to Petersburgh, on the western side of the mountains in the valley of Virginia, and there formed a commissary’s depot, and on the 5th of May General Frémont, who had been appointed to the command of the mountain department, marched from New Creek southerly, to the relief of the positions of the Union forces threatened by General “ Stonewall” Jackson, and reached Pittsburgh about the-7th of May, and there he ordered Captain Mackenzie to procure beef-cattle to accompany the march of the army as stated, and under these orders eight hundred head of cattle were ordered of the petitioners on the 8th of May. General Frémont continued his march southerly, toward Franklin, where General Schenck was stationed. At this time General Milroy, commanding at McDowell, was attacked there by General Stonewall” Jackson, and driven back on General Schenck; there a stand was made, and General Frémont coming up with his army, the enemy withdrew, and General Frémont, with the forces now under his command, made his headquarters at Franklin, where he remained ten days.

The object of General “Stonewall” Jackson in attacking General Milroy was to prevent his junction with General Banks on the easterly side of the mountains at Harrisonburgh, and this, being effected by the defeat of General Milroy, General Stonewall” Jackson rapidly crossed the mountains and fell on Gen[303]*303eral Banks, and on the 24th and 25th of May drove him through Strasburgh, northerly, and through Winchester and Martins-burg’h to the Potomac and over it, General Banks crossing the river on the 20th of May.

On the 23d May General Frémont was ordered to march from Franklin to General Banks’s aid, and on the 25th of May he started with all the forces under his command. The roads to Petersburgh and Moorheld were broken up by wagon-trains and heavy and rough, and at Hunting Bulge he turned and crossed the mountains, and, by a forced and difficult march in bad and rainy weather, in eight days from the time he started he reached the division of the roads leading to Winchester and Strasburgh. In the mean time General Shields, on his march to Frederieksburgh, had learned the defeat of General Banks, and retraced his steps back to Front Boyal to aid General Banks and cut off General “ Stonewall” Jackson’s retreat. For the same purpose General Sigel marched with his division from Harper’s Ferry westerly toward Winchester, which his advance, under General Cooper, reached May 25. But between all these forces, marching from the east and west, General Stonewall Jackson passed safely with his army and retreated, southerly, through Winchester and Strasburgh. After this General Banks with his command returned from the Potomac, and his forces being combined with those of General Shields’s and General Sigel’s and General Frémont’s, pursued General Stonewall Jackson, and he, to stop their pursuit, turned and fought them at Gross Keys, June 8. After this check the Union Army fell back to Mount Jackson and rested there.

This sketch of the movement of the different forces shows that during the time of General Frémont’s march from New Greek to near McDowell and thence back to Franklin, from the 5th to the 25th May, and on his forced march from Franklin across the mountains to near Strasburgh, General Lander’s division, to which the written contract referred, formed no part of General Fremont’s army, and that all the time these different forces were on different sides of the mountains.. And it shows also that the movement referred to in the contract of February 1 was not the forced march of General Frémont to aid General Banks in his retreat of 24th and 25th May. And, therefore, it shows that the supplies for which this suit is brought were furnished to troops and in localities, quantities, [304]*304and circumstances to which, the written contract of February 1 did not relate, and under another and distinct contract made at a different time and place, and for a different purpose, and in a different manner, and under a different authority; for it was made under the orders of General Frémont, and by the telegrams above shown, and with'no other reference to the written contract than an express agreement for a different price, and in an emergency which the written contract did not contemplate and could not meet. That contract specified the number of cattle to accompany the march of Lander’s division, then contemplated at one hundred head, more or less. This by legal construction could not be extended beyond one hundred and some part of another hundred, while eight hundred head of cattle were ordered for the army of General Frémont in one day, and on his forced march from Franklin the order was for two hundred head every day till further ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Battelle v. United States
21 Ct. Cl. 250 (Court of Claims, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ct. Cl. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battelle-v-united-states-cc-1872.