Davis v. United States

Court of Claims

Davis v. United States

59 Ct. Cl. 197, 1924 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 583, 1924 WL 2407

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 28, 1924

DocketNo. B-88

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Ct. Cl. 197 (Davis 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

Davis v. United States, 59 Ct. Cl. 197, 1924 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 583, 1924 WL 2407 (cc 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

[198]*198MEMORANDUM BY THE COTJRT

This case was before the Auditor for the State and Other Departments and afterwards before the comptroller, on appeal. The claim was disallowed in both instances. While the claim is beyond doubt an equitable one, we find no legal way for the rendition of judgment. Section 87 of the act of January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 622, provides: “All printing, binding, and blank books * * * for the executive and judicial departments shall be done at the Government Printing Office, except in cases otherwise provided by law.” This statute, taken in connection with section 2 of the act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 697, 762, clearly imports a positive inhibition against an executive officer going outside the Government Printing Office for supplies such as are here involved. The comptroller has for a long time and without exception disallowed claims of a similar nature, and Ave are unable to discover in the record any fact or circumstance which makes of' this case an exception. Where a statute in express language circumscribes the authority and power of an officer of the Government and expressly directs the manner of secui'ing supplies of the character here furnished, we are not, in the absence of borne precedent to that effect, authorized in holding the United States liable for a contract made in direct opposition to existing law.

The cases cited in the very able brief of plaintiff’s counsel do not meet the issue. If an officer of the Government is positively forbidden to enter into a contract, and in addition to this is mandatorily directed to act in a certain way under prescribed conditions, he may not disregard the mandate of the law and obligate the United States in so doing. His authority to act is derived from the statute.

The petition is dismissed.

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

[198]*198MEMORANDUM BY THE COTJRT

This case was before the Auditor for the State and Other Departments and afterwards before the comptroller, on appeal. The claim was disallowed in both instances. While the claim is beyond doubt an equitable one, we find no legal way for the rendition of judgment. Section 87 of the act of January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 622, provides: “All printing, binding, and blank books * * * for the executive and judicial departments shall be done at the Government Printing Office, except in cases otherwise provided by law.” This statute, taken in connection with section 2 of the act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat. 697, 762, clearly imports a positive inhibition against an executive officer going outside the Government Printing Office for supplies such as are here involved. The comptroller has for a long time and without exception disallowed claims of a similar nature, and Ave are unable to discover in the record any fact or circumstance which makes of' this case an exception. Where a statute in express language circumscribes the authority and power of an officer of the Government and expressly directs the manner of secui'ing supplies of the character here furnished, we are not, in the absence of borne precedent to that effect, authorized in holding the United States liable for a contract made in direct opposition to existing law.

The cases cited in the very able brief of plaintiff’s counsel do not meet the issue. If an officer of the Government is positively forbidden to enter into a contract, and in addition to this is mandatorily directed to act in a certain way under prescribed conditions, he may not disregard the mandate of the law and obligate the United States in so doing. His authority to act is derived from the statute.

The petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Ct. Cl. 197, 1924 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 583, 1924 WL 2407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-united-states-cc-1924.