Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the petition of Isaac Houston, praying compensation for carrying the mail, have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

That Isaac Houston, the petitioner, entered into contract, on the 21st day of October, 1848, for a once-a-week supply of Kane, Iowa, from Austin, Missouri, to take effect from 21st October, 1848, and to expire on the 30th June, 1850. For this service he, Mr. Houston, was to be paid the net proceeds collected at Kane, and at any office which the department should establish on said route.

Prior to the expiration of Mr. Houston's contract, to wit: on the 27th of August, 1849, he was ordered to discontinue the service; but there is no evidence on the books of the department of the date upon which the service ceased.

From the "statement of mails sent from Kane, Iowa, and of the net proceeds of said office, from 1st July, 1848, to 30th September, 1849," it appears that during the 3d and 4th quarters of 1848, and 1st, 2d, and 3d quarters of 1849, there were received at Kane net proceeds amounting to $216 11, to which sum the petitioner is entitled under his contract, no other office having, so far as appears from the evidence, been established on the route. It is fair to suppose that Mr. Houston carried the mail until the end of the 3d quarter of 1849, as the Assistant Postmaster General, Mr. Hobbie, states, in his letter, filed among the papers, that he was ordered to discontinue on the 27th August, 1849; "but there is no evidence on our books of the date upon which service ceased."

Your committee are of opinion that the petitioner is clearly entitled to receive the difference between $168 95, the amount which has already been paid to him, and $216 11, the net proceeds "collected at Kane," to wit: $47 05. They therefore recommend the adoption of the accompanying resolution."

[blocks in formation]

The Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred the "petition of Samuel F. Butterworth, praying compensation for services in carrying the mail," have had the same under consideration, and respectfully report:

That the report of the committee above named, presented by Mr. Niles, on the 9th of August, 1848, (1st session, 30th Congress,) so entirely expresses their views as to render the preparation of a new report unnecessary. That report says:

"On the 23d of October, 1837, S. B. Stark contracted with the Post Office Department to carry the mail on route No. 3,801, from Jackson to Columbus, in Mississippi, from January 1, 1838, to June 30, 1842, at the rate of pay of $3,625 for each quarter. On the 1st day of July, 1839, said Stark sold to the petitioner one-half of his stock and one-half of his interest in the contract, for the consideration of five thousand dollars. Before said contract had expired, viz: on the 21st day of September, 1839, a new contract was made with the department by said Stark and the petitioner, in the name of Stark & Butterworth, to convey the mail on said route, for the same rate of pay, for the unexpired part of the time of said Stark's contract, so that this contract was to expire on the 30th June, 1842.

"It appears that, on the 23d of September, 1839, three days after this joint contract, Stark wrote to the Auditor of the department, directing him to remit one-half of what would be due for the quarter ending the 30th of September to the petitioner, and to apply the other half, which he says belonged to him, on a draft which he had previously drawn, and which remained unpaid.

"Said Stark also drew a draft in his own name for $1,900 in favor of Y. N. Oliver, the date of which does not appear, but which was enclosed in a letter to the Auditor dated the 4th of October, 1839. This draft was received by the Auditor, and an entry made on the books: Left on file with Colonel C. K. Gardner, to be paid when they can pay it, but nothing can be paid out of the September quarter's pay; Stark is only half owner, and had given previous orders: 15th October, 1839.'

"Whether the petitioner knew of this draft at the time it was drawn

by Stark, in his own name, does not appear; but it does appear that he subsequently knew of it, and assented to its being paid from the proceeds of their contract.

"On the 1st of January, 1840, a letter or notice was sent to the Auditor in the following words:

"COLUMBUS, January 1, 1840.

"SIR: We give you below our signature. You will please pay, from any moneys now due, or that may hereafter become due, all drafts drawn over this signature. You will please pay no other drafts drawn by either of us, except one drawn by S. B. Stark for $1,900, and now held by Major Andrews, as agent for Y. N. Oliver. The residue of the pay now due us, and that may become due during the year 1840, will be necessary to enable us to carry the mail on route No. 3,801, from Columbus to Jackson.

"With great respect, we annex our signature,

"C. K. GARDNER, Esq.,

"STARK & BUTTERWORTH.

"Auditor Post Office Department.'

"It is proved, by the affidavit of said Stark, that he assented to this letter or notice, and that it was in the handwriting of the petitioner. But it is not proved that the handwriting of the petitioner was known to the Auditor. Previous to this notice, on this 9th day of December, 1839. Stark transferred and sold all his interest in said contract, and in the stock and other property of the firm, to the petitioner.

"On the 10th of March, 1840, more than three months after said notice, Stark made the following draft on the Auditor :

$2,862 36.]

"COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI,
"March 10, 1840.

"SIR: On presentation of this, my order, which is irrevocable, please to pay Mr. James Gould, of Albany, New York, or his order, the sum of twenty-eight hundred and sixty-two dollars and thirty-six cents, out of any moneys due me, or to become due, for transporting the mails of the United States between Columbus and Jackson, on mail route No. 3,501, and charge, for value received, to your obedient servant,

"C. K. GARDNER, Esq.,

"Auditor of Post Office Department,

Washington City, D. C.'

66 6
"'S. B. STARK.

"This draft was presented to C. K. Gardner, then Auditor, who re fused to receive it, or note it for payment. Some years afterwards it was presented to Elisha Whittlesey, then Auditor, who caused the same to be noted on the books of the office, and afterwards, on a full hearing of the parties, decided that the said draft was good for the one-half of the pay the due on said contract, and for the one-half of what might become due; and subsequently said draft was paid in full to said Gould, in preference drafts drawn by the petitioner in the name of Stark & Butterworth.

"This decision of the Auditor appears to have been made on tw

[ocr errors]

grounds: first, that the parties had made an arrangement to divide their pay, by which each one was authorized to receive or draw for his half of it; and secondly, that the notice did not set aside or disannul that arrangement. That there was such an arrangement previous to the contract's being changed or transferred to Stark and the petitioner jointly, appears to be true. But the only evidence that such an arrangement was continued after Stark & Butterworth became joint contractors is the draft drawn by Stark in his own name, in favor of Y. N, Oliver, for $1,900, which the petitioner afterwards recognised and agreed should be paid from the proceeds of their contract. The notice itself accepts this draft, but directs that no other draft shall be paid unless drawn by the signature of Stark & Butterworth. The recognition of this draft seems to be the only evidence that the petitioner assented to an arrangement to divide the pay after the joint contract. But, if the transactions of the parties were such as to authorize the Auditor to pay the individual drafts of the contractors for one-half of the accruing pay previous to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the question arises whether it could lawfully and justly be done after such notice was received by the Auditor. By law, and the usage of the department, payments for mail service are usually made to the order or draft of the contractors, in the name in which the contract is made. And, where there are several persons concerned in a contract, any one has authority to use the name in which the contract is executed. If different arrangements are made between them in respect to the mode of receiving he payments, the Auditor can recognise them or not, as he pleases. In his case, neither Stark nor the petitioner had any legal right to draw for the whole or one-half of the accruing pay, in his individual name, after the oint contract. But the Auditor could, if he pleased, recognise such an rrangement between them, and make the payments accordingly. But, o be justified in this course, he should have satisfactory evidence that both of the individuals concerned in the contract had assented to the arangement. As this mode of payment could only be justified by the greement or assent of the individual partners in the contract, if that greement or assent was revoked or withdrawn by all or any one of them, ayments could no longer be made lawfully or rightfully in that way.

The draft in question was drawn more than three months after the otice before recited had been given. On what principle, then, of law r justice, could the draft drawn by Stark, in his individual name, be paid? t is objected by the Auditor that the notice should have been signed by Stark and the petitioner in their individual signatures. This might ave been more proper; but, unless supposed to be a forgery, it must be he act of one, if not both, of the parties. It was the act of the member f the firm in whose handwriting it was, even if the other partner did ot assent to it. It was in the handwriting of the petitioner, and was his ct at least; and had not he a right to revoke the agreement authorizing ne payment to be made to the individual partners? We think he had. But it appears from Stark's affidavit that he was knowing to the notice eing given, and assented to it. It was, then, in fact, as it purported to e on its face, the act of both of the partners. This agreement being reoked, the case stood on the same ground as though no such arrangehent had been made. The question then is, whether the Auditor, in the ase of a joint contract, in the name of Stark & Butterworth, could be istified in paying drafts drawn by them individually, each for one-half of

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »