Campbell v. District of Columbia

Supreme Court

Campbell v. District of Columbia

117 U.S. 615, 6 S. Ct. 922, 29 L. Ed. 1007, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1881

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 29, 1886

Docket207

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 117 U.S. 615 (Campbell v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. District of Columbia, 117 U.S. 615, 6 S. Ct. 922, 29 L. Ed. 1007, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1881 (1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Ms. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This judgment is affirmed. There was no evidence whatever in the case tending to prove that'.the work was done by Campbell otherwise than under the contract of O’Hare, Him-ber & Co. He took the place of that firm in the contract so far as the,work he undertook to do was concerned. Davenport, one-*of its members, authorized him. to do the work and receive the pay upon vouchers, which he, Davenport, agreed to sign. It was upon this, authority that Campbell entered upon the work, with the permission of the chief engineer in charge.- In this way he became bound, by-the terms of, the contract. Under these circumstances, his acceptance of the allowance rhade by the chief engineer for-all his present claims for. extra work, as “in full settlement of the above stated claim,” operated as a complete discharge of the District from all further liability to him on that account. - The provision in the act of the legislative assembly of the District, “ that this • receipt shall not debar the above named persons from any right they may have in any court,” clearly applies only to the claim, of Robert Strong & Co. As to all others, named in the act, “the receipt was to be in full of \ all claims on account of the-said work,” •

• Affirmed.

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

Ms. Chief Justice "Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

This judgment is affirmed. There was no evidence whatever in the case tending to prove that'.the work was done by Campbell otherwise than under the contract of O’Hare, Him-ber & Co. He took the place of that firm in the contract so far as the,work he undertook to do was concerned. Davenport, one-*of its members, authorized him. to do the work and receive the pay upon vouchers, which he, Davenport, agreed to sign. It was upon this, authority that Campbell entered upon the work, with the permission of the chief engineer in charge.- In this way he became bound, by-the terms of, the contract. Under these circumstances, his acceptance of the allowance rhade by the chief engineer for-all his present claims for. extra work, as “in full settlement of the above stated claim,” operated as a complete discharge of the District from all further liability to him on that account. - The provision in the act of the legislative assembly of the District, “ that this • receipt shall not debar the above named persons from any right they may have in any court,” clearly applies only to the claim, of Robert Strong & Co. As to all others, named in the act, “the receipt was to be in full of \ all claims on account of the-said work,” •

• Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 U.S. 615, 6 S. Ct. 922, 29 L. Ed. 1007, 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-district-of-columbia-scotus-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack