*1 Brаdley in a between the existence.” There is broad difference already cases where the made and the bonds are subscription actually issued in the fact after and where corporation complete, these are done while the remains incom- things corporation plete. matter, the whole we the
Upon are of the case opinion was well decided. The first answered in certified is question affirmative, the and as that of the entire disposes controversy, no attention need be to the second given question.
Judgment affirmed. Brаdley v. United States. indenture, whereby
A. and the executed an Postmaster-General the former Department, use of the leased to the United Post-office at §4,200,payable quarterly, building a Washington, an annual rent of 5, 1873, years privilege with renewing three from and after June “ period years. thereby It for the of two was further understood and by parties agreed” appropria- the indenture made by Congress payment stipulated tion of the and that no should be made to A. on account thereof until such should be available, paid full, due, when the arrears then would be and thereafter payments stipulated. at the Congress made time and manner appropriations pay specified requisite made the rent to the end of By 3, year (18 of the term. the act of March the second 367), Stat. year making appropriations ending 30, 1876, fiscal June §1,800, proviso a for the rent with that the above sum shall paid any not be deemed to be account lease for of said build- however, Provided, ing: present year that at the end of the fiscal the Post- directed, lessor, upon the demand up master-General be to deliver possession premises.” by said No such demand the lessor was having year, A. received no rent for the third sued the United States there- $4,200. Held, for, indenture, and claimed 1. That agreement, expressed understanding incorporate their intended to into prohibits instrument the substance act “ involving department contract for the future appropriations.” in excess of the appropria- That the recognition a tions for two of the term were not of validity the contract as bound United States to proviso for the third A. 3. That the said had seasonable notice §1,800 that no more than would be to him as rent for the third he, having premises, demanded the must be held to act. have assented the terms offered said Bradley Oct. v. 1878.] Appeal from the Court of Claims. use
This was an action Andrew C. Bacon, trustees, Cross, Samuel Peter F. George Taylor, $4,200 be due from recover the sum of rent claimed to Street, E United States No. 915 June for the fiscal city ending Washington, *2 — The court below found facts: the following June, and 1. On the 6th of the Postmaster-General indenture, claimant, of the made and executed Bradley, — which the a following copy: “ indenture, June, in one of the made this sixth day This An- and and bеtween seventy-three, by hundred thousand eight and John C.,D. of first part, of the drew C. Bradley, Washington, Postmaster-General, for behalf of the and in Creswell, J.A. said That the America, of the second witnesseth: of part, States rents, cove- and in of the first consideration part, for party the and nants, to be agreements paid, kept, performed and and lease unto the demise hereby of second doth part, the party with four- certain the the second those premises, said of part, party thereon, north on the and brick situated house stable brick story Streets, the of Streеt, and 10th in city between 9th of E side Columbia, house and known as of in the District Washington, northwest, to hold to E to have and 915 on said Street numbered from and of three years for the term of the second part, the party June, hun- Domini one thousand eight of Anno day after the fifth the said party with the privilege dred and seventy-three, of said term the further period a renewal of the of part second two years. and there- of the second part yielding paying The said party renewal and a the said term subsequent during for the annual two hundred dollars thousand thereof, aforesaid, ($4,200), of four оf the day thirty-first the thirtieth September, payable quarterly, March, thirtieth of and the December, thirty-first day of day of June. day by and understood and agreed, mutually
“And it is hereby hereto, this lease is made between the parties herein rental appropriation by Congress party be made to said for, shall and no payment such appropri- rental until on account such first part v. United available, ation shall be and as soon as alter practicable available the arrears of shall become full, then due shall be and thereafter payment paid shall be made manner at the times and hereinbefore stipu- lated. “ And said that he part first agreed party hereby will, at and his own remove such construct such expense, partitions doors, partitions, with and in said necessary doorways building, water-closets, construct such with the water con- necessary nections, as architect of the required supervising he will leave in order Treasury Department, all good gas-fixtures now said use said building party the second part; and of the second will party part keep the. said of this good repair during continuance renewed thеreof, term expenses altera- interior, tions of or additions to not herein provided otherwise for, so as to it to the use of and not cal- adapt culated to are premises, to be borne damage party the second part, and all taxes assessments levied or legally are to be charged upon the first property party part.
“And it is further in case hereby provided premises, thereof, any part said or the renewal during be de- thereof *3 fire stroyed injured or other unavoidable so that by casualty, the same use, shall be unfit for thereby rеndered then rent hereinbefore reserved, thereof, or a and just proportionable part to the sustained, extent and nature of the according injury shall or abated until said shall suspended have been premises put in condition for use and at the proper by of the said expense party of the first and part; the said of the second covenants party part to deliver up premises said to the of the first at part party the determination of this or at the end renewal of thereof, condition, the term in and order reasonable good wеar use and thereof and fire or other injury unavoidable casualty excepted.
“And is further second party part aforesaid, at or before the may, delivery of remove premises same, such additions to or improvements on the placed the said of the second the removal of party part, premises which, aforesaid, he, as will not injure premises, said second elect so do. part, party Bradley Oct. v. United States. 1878.] “ their whereof, In set witness hereto have hereunto the parties above hands and and first seals written. day year Bradley. “A. C. [seal.] “ Creswell, A. J. Jno. [seal.] “ Postmaster-General. Spence. sealed, and delivered > T. A. Signed, j in A. G. Mills.” presence and were sold 2. described said indenture The premises said and the lease was assigned, conveyed, him Alexander R. conveyed assigned Shepherd, Bacon, Cross, and F. as alleged Peter Samuel George Taylor, and in the thereof. amendment petition the uses and used and 3. Said were occupied benefit and for the of the Post-Office Department, purposes Postmaster- under the direction of the of the United General, said indenture until from the time executing 30, 1876, thereto. as well as June subsequently including of said The have been premises, 4. claimants to and includ- Congress, up through special appropriations 1875, 30, been June but have paid nothing ing 30, June 1876. ending been made demand has ever It does not appear for deliv- on the of the claimants Postmaster-General part of the premises. up
ery thereto, facts, in relation the statutes On foregoing were of law that claimants court concluded as matter $1,800. been to recover the sum of Judgment having entitled amount, to this court. the claimants rendered for appealed executed, two statutes the indenture was were When force. shall hereafter be unless or purchase
“No law, or tinder an appropriation adequate authorized same be fulfilment, Navy the War except Departments, to its which, subsistence, fuel, forage, quarters, transportation, clothing, the necessities of the current Act however, year.” exceed shall Stat., 2, 1861, 12 Stat. Rev. sect. March *4 any department government be lawful for It shall not sum in of any excess year appropriations to one fiscal expend any fisсal the government for that involve made by Congress Cl. v. in any contract for the future of excess of such 12, 1870, appropriations.” 7, Act of July 16 Stat. Rev. Stat., sect. 3679. The 30, bill for the fiscal deficiency June ending — 1874,
and contained the following provision:
“For rent house of numbered hundred fifteen E nine and Street northwest, for further of accommodation the clerical force of sixth, department, from June hundred and eighteen seventy-three, thirtieth, to June hundred and four thousand eighteen seventy-four, cents, four hundred and and and dollars eighty-eight eighty-six hereafter no contract be made for the rent of shall any building, part in use now building Wаshington, government, to be used for until purposes government, therefor shall have been made in terms Con- gress.” Stat.
The act executive, for the making legislative, appropriations judicial expenses year ending 30, $4,200 June “for rent house num- bered nine hundred and fifteen E Street northwest.” Id. 107. 3,1875
The act of March (id. 367), making appropriations — the fiscal 30,1876, June contains the year ending following: “ For rent of house numbered nine E hundred and fifteen Street northwest, hundred Provided, dollars: the above eighteen sum shall deemed to be not be account Provided, however, of said the end building: that at directed, fiscal de- Postmaster-General present lessor, mand of the to deliver up of said possession premises.” Mr. J. Ashton Mr. Hubley Nathaniel Wilson appellants.
The construction Court Claims that clause given by of the lease which violates provides settled rules contracts and interpretation applicable landlord tenant, the relations of and is inconsistent w'holly with the intention of the in the other expressed pro- of the indenture. It visions attributes the lessor the mani- irrational and intent of of his festly purpose giving for five while he in the mean time was to property years, keep it in make extensive good repair improvements, was to rent the tenant think whatever might accept proper pay. *5 Bradley Oct. 1878.] v. intended have that tbe should incredible parties
It equally to Con- to submit an in agreement, to to put writing agree, “ the to make or refuse appropriations.” right gress covenants, lease, with its all construction a destroys Such lessee, those which are save advantage conditions, with the but with its not general inconsistent only the same clause which in other obvious meaning provisions The pro- the tenant is relied exempt liability. upon ” after an appropriation vision for regular payments quarterly in- the lessor with the that irreconcilable theory wholly as the amount of the time as well tended leave tenant. determination of the arbitrary was inserted for the under consideration purpose clause The and not of and source of the method payment, of designating and relations of dependent rights making legal event. future contingent upon any be of If, however, this court shall agree- opinion relations, as well as that such ment contemplated rights be were determined Congress, the mode .to payment, of the contract of the binding obligation then the recognition which, when once an to be manifested by appropriation, was it made, thereby validating acceptance term, the lessor to the and entitling for the entire rent. intention of from and expressed independently
Apart considered it is apparent parties, a term contract for as a conditional lease was presented That disapproved. body obviously be approved years, be, it construed to should be its action intended was, and ratification of lease an acceptance implication intended, had not so it would term. If the whole in such terms have specific provided thereafter, as declared except buildings nor no should be entered into then use Washington, made; but, as a had been subsequent until an did, have would requisite same with a reference to proviso account of should not deemed be paid years. v. that, be admitted where the United
While
States
is a
acts and omissions which would create a
principal,
pre
of ratification
the case
an individual will
sumption
it,
no
create
the action
when
against
presumption
Congress,
facts,
of all the
the benefits of
fully cognizant
accepting
contract,
a
has the same
legal
significance
consequences
of an
v.
States,
similar action
individual. Fremont United
461;
&
239;
Nott
H.
ed.),
Mc
Story, Agency (8th
Brooks,
16 Cal.
Roberts
al. v.
et
Cauley
A ratification once a full deliberately knowledge circumstances, of all the eo material becomes instanti obliga- and cannot afterwards revoked recalled. Wharton, tory, *6 72, sects. Commentaries 73. Agеncy, it If should be held that the action of did not ratify term, the contract and validate the lease for the entire it must it did admitted validate it for the first and second ; and as the entered the government and main- premises lease, tained under the it liable for the possession rent for the third year. tenant
A over after the holding expiration lease, his landlord, with the consent becomes a tenant from year to the terms and conditions year, subject of the original 22; Tenant, lease. Landlord and Taylor, sect. Kingler v. States, 407; Root, 4 Nott & H. McLean, Baker v. 4 572. lease
A void as to the years, though good if enters, one the lessee year thereafter be- tenancy comes a tenancy Frauds,
A lease void under the Statute of for want of au- it, who executed will thority agent regulate rights the actual existence of the parties during tenancy. Tenant, 26; Landlord and sect. Bleiler, Porter v. Taylor, 17 Barb. (N. Y.)
The liabilities of rights are to be measured and determined the lease under which was ob- tained, and neither can terms party change tenancy assent the other.
Furthermore, if the lease void, was and not subsequently Ill Oct. 1878.] v. validated, entered upon occupied having gоvernment, im- an under be deemed as entered is to having the premises, com- to make a fair and reasonable and is bound plied use and for the rent or the occupation pensation premises. that, absence of an
It has this court been held by void, the contract, or when the express express has for the value of the is liable property ; States, 19 Wall. v. United received and used. Salomon Gill, id. States v. Solicitor-General, contra. The of the court. delivered the Mr. Clifford opinion Justice instruments, Leases, must receive written like deeds other cоnstruction, em from the as derived a reasonable language what aid of extrinsic evidence without the beyond ployed, to disclose the circum be necessary identify premises instrument was when the stances transaction surrounding Quackenboss Johns. Lansing, executed. Y.) Tay (N. lor, Tenant, Landlord and note. below to from the of the court
Sufficient appears findings June, 1873, that, on the show 6th to the United executed whereby appellant rents, covenants, former, in consideration of the agreements to the United in the instrument demised and leased specified, for the term of described in the petition States 5, 1873, from and after with three June privileges lessees of a renewal of the term for the further period *7 rent, term and at and for the annual the said two during years, thereof, $4,200, renewal subsequent payable quarterly in the in the of lease exhibited the specified days record. show, the
Both sides concede what the lease and record that for were leased the convenience the United States premises the the Postmaster-General Post-Office Department, same, the took immediate and that premises have his ever since been used for the purposes department.
Four noticed other of the court below should be findings the this connection: 1. the lessor sold and That conveyed R. the lease to to Alexander premises Shepherd assigned him, he, and that the the same assignee, conveyed assigned named in the to the other That persons petition. were used United States for the men- purposes tioned for the whole 3. That holders of period alleged. the lease have been the whole for the last paid except for have been which pаid nothing. Adequate ap- they were made propriations by Congress authorizing payments but have been refused to appropriate $1,800 more than last
Pursuant held to those court below findings, could recover the sum and ren- plaintiffs only appropriated,, amount, dered favor for in their from which judgment to this court. Since the judgment appealed plaintiffs ap- here, was entered error that the peal appellants assign court below erred in construction the indenture of given lease, and to acts the two referred to findings of fact.
Due $1,800 the sum of made Con- appropriation the rental and the court gress last below year; sum, rendered in favor of for that judgment appellants which exhausts the made for that appropriation by Congress for decision whether the purpose, question being only ap- can in this recover case the balance of pellants their claim which has never been appropriated Congress. cannot be drawn
Moneys treasury; it is clear the terms of the equally parties, by understood and with each other that the lease was made agreed apprоpriation by Congress payment ” “ rental, stipulated no shall be made to the lessor on account of rental until such an appropriation ” available; shall become that as soon as after such practicable available, shall become appropriation arrears of rent full, then due shall and that thereafter shall be times made at the and in the manner indenture of lease. time,
Prior to that had enacted shall not be lawful for any department expend one fiscal sum in excess made *8 Bradley 113
Oct. 1878.] States. v. for that fiscal or to involve government of such in excess the future money contract for any in the and both concur proposition appropriation; time the force and at the was in full operation that provision Stat. consideration was executed. 16 of lease under Stat., 231; sect. 3679. Rev. for the future were forbidden or contracts purchases Such
. March, 1861, author- unless same were of the 2d of the act made under an adequate ized law or were appropriation subsistence, fuel, fulfilment, forage, except clothing, their or in the War Department; Navy transрortation, quarters, contracts, such even make nor could those departments of the current necessities those beyond purposes, Stat., Rev. Stat. earlier, enacted that neither Secre- Forty years State, of War or or of the Treasury, Depart- Navy tary ment, make contract other than such as thereafter should and subsistence army were necessary clothing contracts department, and quartermaster’s navy, or under an same, a law appropri- under authorizing except to its fulfilment. 3 Stat. 768. ation adequate an act directing Secretary passed Navy at three of to be constructed cause floating dry-docks were made and specified appropriations national navy-yards, the several docks. measures were towards constructing Proper to ascertain what each structure Secretary adopted cost, from which it appropriation would appeared facts, In view of these the Sec- insufficient. each greatly whether he could doubted contract to have lawfully retary done, submitted the to the question work Attorney- the facts as stated General, who decided brought named, within the of the act last prohibition case directly could not be made. 4 contracts lawfully Op. Att’y-Gen. stated, arise, as where the
Cases there authority act, for the work expressly given clear, admitted, in such cases there that the power to be contract exists even exceeds though price in that amount kind are Examples appropriated. given VOL. VIII. added; but
opinion, which more when no many might is contained in the act authority given, nothing from which such an appropriating authority it is clear that the head оf the implied, cannot department involve the in an obligation pay any thing *9 excess of the appropriation. to show that
Argument cannot drawn from the money before it is treasury as the Con- unnecessary, stitution that “no shall be drawn from provides the money ” law; but in of an made treasury consequence appropriation by nor is it to enter into much discussion show that necessary the act of it unlawful for the head of de- a Congress making to involve the contract partment for the government future of of in excess an is a payment money appropriation act, valid and of as such binding obligation, regulаtions in one form or prohibitions another have been in operation the whole question since the throughout period nearly of the Constitution. adoption kind, admitted, of of
Acts it must be are both valid and in their and it is clear salutary operation; equally that who drafted the indenture of lease intended to party into the instrument the substance of the incorporate provision which the head of prohibits a department involving future payment in excess of the made its fulfilment. for appropriation Well- founded doubt that cannot be entertained, and subject the court is of the of the words are opinion indenture sufficient to effect the which the who amply object person drafted the instrument intended to accomplish.
Both that the indenture was agreed to be for made appropriation by payment rental, and no should be made that lessor on account of rental until such an should be- appropriation valid, come available. Concede these are that stipulations to a doubt, which there can no it is clear demonstration in excess of that the claim of the the amount apрellants allowed the court below is by groundless. utterly so,
Even still it is insisted suppose appellants has committed the subsequent Congress, by legislation, Oct. 1878.] States to the annual rental stipulated whole term three specified years entitled to and that are the entire they judgment remained of the third which when the suit
rental unpaid commenced, fact that irrespective judgment their favor the court below exhausts the whole rendered in amount pur- money appropriated pose. were made
Two annual Congress, appropriations rental of the werе sufficient pay stipulated aggregate ; and court first two findings premises for those two were below duly show payments more claimed and that nothing appellants these, the first was Of regard. simply rental, with- annual the amount required what was whatever out beyond necessary any explanation leased, from which it is that noth- describe the plain inferred from that act can be support theory ing 18 Stat. 107. appellants. second which is the sum to the
Annexed appropriation, *10 that $4,488.86, is the wit: hereafter no following proviso, rent of or be made for the contract building, shall any part not now in use in Washington, govern- any building ment, for the until -an to be used purposes government, been therefor shall have made terms Con- appropriation Id. 144. gress. these two made acts were available
Specific appropriations by leased first two the rental of years; pay be, decision can that it is as legal but clear any thing they whatever to no support furnish theory ground to make such an obligation entered into legal appropriation any that, inference, Instead of if to be for the third any, last act tends negative drawn from appellants’ theory, intendеd to adhere to and to show that Congress stipula- — made that it was to an tions of subject appropria- tion the rental payment stipulated, by Congress made to that no should be on account lessor payment should become avail- rental until such appropriation able. acts, those as that two
Unsupported theory by appropriation record, it well be else exhibited dis- by any thing may merit, further missed as destitute of without consideration. If the of lease had been for three indenture years that was made covenant it any appropriation by and that no on account of rental should be Congress, available, made until such an became be appropriation that the was for three appellants, theory maintained; as an be if not, entire that it might be held that had ratified the instrument might perhaps for the rental the first two by appropriating money Be that as it it is true that no years. still ratification of may, such act would benefit the present by any appel- lants so in-that it contains the covenant that no regard, long of the rental shall be made until an appropriation becomes аvailable. purpose be, in that as the
Viewed case should a few observa- light, tions will sufficient to show that is found in the nothing act warrant a in favor remaining appropriation judgment sum what was allowed appellants beyond court below. dollars were hundred
Eighteen appropriated by Congress the third several months before the second year expired. to that is the Appended proviso the above sum shall not be deemed to be on account of of said which shows building, conclusively intended to negative the inden- theory appellants ture them tо recover gave right any thing States the sum beyond Congress.
Confirmation is also derived from a second proposition annexed to the same proviso which it appropriation, by enacted that at the end of the fiscal the Post- present directed, lessor, master-General demand deliver of the said up Id. premises. as those be,
Construed should view of provisions the sub- *11 circumstances, it ject-matter surrounding clear that intended to give seasonable notice the lessor of that no more than the sum would appropriated as rental the same for the third paid and that he might Oct. 1878.] if he did not fit to accept of the same see
take possession for their use and sum occupation. appropriated below, and were court views expressed Corresponding never as held, held, that inasmuch and well appellants they be determined must demanded the premises, redelivery assented the terms in and that they acquiesced for the third offered year. by Congress treas- case, no funds in the officers, Public in such a having States, can to bind without authority being ury rental, the money provided agree only lessor, and if voluntarily Congress, enters into a lease or deception, misrepresentation nor terms, Congress; he must justice on those rely upon disclose hardship, case in this do the circumstances would notified they were seasonably appellants sum rent than the third appro- any greater Queen, Law Rep. v. The Churchward purpose. priated Q. B. 199. is no that there these reasons the court of the opinion For record. error Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Miller, with whom concurred Justice Mr. Harlan, dis- Field, Strong, Mr. Justice Mr. Justice senting. expressly annual two appropriations
I am opinion to the terms for each according due for the sum year’s of that validity were recognitions the claimant and that bind the United third amount the same to recover entitled