Piper v. United States

Court of Claims

Piper v. United States

12 Ct. Cl. 219

DecidedDecember 15, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ct. Cl. 219 (Piper 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

Piper v. United States, 12 Ct. Cl. 219 (cc 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Drake, Oh. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants seem to have been under the impression that they were entitled to the transportation from Wichita, Kansas, of all the supplies which the Government might purchase in the year 1873-74 for the Kiowa, Wichita, and Upper Arkansas agencies, under the advertisement of ^March 20, 1873. This is a mistaken view of the contract.- By its terms the claimants were entitled to the transportation of goods, &c., purchased by the Indian Department for the public service, and transported over the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Eailroad', under con[226]*226tract with M. L. Sargent, general freight-agent thereof, of even date with the contract of the claimants.

To entitle the claimants to transport goods, &c., from Wichita to those agencies, the goods should have come to Wichita on that railroad; and there was no evidence of that fact; and therefore no ground for a recovery of damages for failing to give the transportation to the claimants.

The claimants’ petition must be dismissed.

Peck, J., was absent when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.

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

Drake, Oh. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimants seem to have been under the impression that they were entitled to the transportation from Wichita, Kansas, of all the supplies which the Government might purchase in the year 1873-74 for the Kiowa, Wichita, and Upper Arkansas agencies, under the advertisement of ^March 20, 1873. This is a mistaken view of the contract.- By its terms the claimants were entitled to the transportation of goods, &c., purchased by the Indian Department for the public service, and transported over the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Eailroad', under con[226]*226tract with M. L. Sargent, general freight-agent thereof, of even date with the contract of the claimants.

To entitle the claimants to transport goods, &c., from Wichita to those agencies, the goods should have come to Wichita on that railroad; and there was no evidence of that fact; and therefore no ground for a recovery of damages for failing to give the transportation to the claimants.

The claimants’ petition must be dismissed.

Peck, J., was absent when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ct. Cl. 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-united-states-cc-1876.