Murphy v. United States

104 U.S. 464, 26 L. Ed. 833, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2026
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 16, 1882·No. 745·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ We are clearly of the opinion that the acceptance by the claimant, without objection, of the amount allowed b.y the Secretary of the Navy, in his adjustment of the account presented to him, was equivalent to a final ¿ettlement arid compromise of all the items of the present claim included in that account. There is nothing in the findings of the court below to warrant a judgment in favor of the claimant upon the only item *465 included in the petition in this case which was not mentioned specifically in the account presented to the Secretary of the Navy and passed on by him in the adjustment he made.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Murphy v. United States, 104 U.S. 464, 26 L. Ed. 833, 1881 U.S. LEXIS 2026 (1882).

104 U.S. 464 (Murphy v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deal v. Federal Housing Administration
260 F.2d 793 (Eighth Circuit, 1958)
Pope v. United States
323 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1944)
St. L., B. & M. Ry. v. United States
268 U.S. 169 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Johnson v. Gallatin Valley Milling Co.
98 P. 883 (Montana Supreme Court, 1909)
City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
94 P. 464 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1908)
Hooe v. United States
43 Ct. Cl. 245 (Court of Claims, 1908)
Hunt v. County Commissioners
62 A. 213 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1905)
Weston v. Falk
92 N.W. 204 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1902)
P. H. McLaughlin & Co. v. United States
37 Ct. Cl. 150 (Court of Claims, 1902)
Finney v. United States
32 Ct. Cl. 546 (Court of Claims, 1897)
Harte v. Castetter
57 N.W. 381 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)