
    (4 Court of Claims R., p. 258; 13 Wallace R., p. 25.)
    Daniel Wormer, Appellee, v. The United States, Appellants.
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    
      The claimant enters into a formal written contract with Colonel Wain, chief quartermaster of the Cavalry Bureau, for the sale anil delivery at Saint Charles, Illinois, of 1,200 horses within thirty days. After the execution of the contract, hut before its performance, and while the claimant is ready and willing to perform, General TVilson, chief of the Cavalry Bureau, issues an order whereby the quartermaster and inspectors at Saint Charles are forbidden to inspect or receive the claimant’s horses except in pursuance of ils terms and directions. Immediately after the promulgation of the order, the claimant requests the chief to suspend or modify it so far as to allow Mm to deliver horses under his contract, in pursuance of the terms thereof, and according to the custom prevailing at the time the contract was made; but the chief ref uses lo allozo the 'claimant to deliver_ horses, except according t.o the terms of the order. The claimant treats the contract as renounced, and does not attempt to perform. Between the contract and the order these diversities appear: The contract is silent as to thebranding of horses ; the order requires it as to those which are rejected, (with permanent disfigurement tohere the inspectors think that there is ' an attempt to defraud the Government.) The contract provides that the horses “ upon being delivered slaallbe examined and inspected without unnecessary delay;” the order, that they shall be placed in the inspection-yards “at least twenty-four hours before inspecting them,” and, “when doubtful, be kept three or four days under guard at the expense of the contractor.” 'The contract implies that the horses during inspection shall be kept in the “ Government stables,” without charge ; the order declares that they “will be fed at the expense of the contractor till they have been branded and accepted.” On these facts the Court of Claims decides that the order in effect required anew contract, throwing upon the contractor increased delay, greater expense, and largely augmented risk ; that although the Government might be entitled to the new inspection, it could not transfer the cost of it to the contraolor ; that the change of expense was a change of price ; and that the refusal to receive except upon the new terms of the order was a renunciation of the contract. Judgment for the claimant. The defendants appeal.
    
    il. Where a contract for the sale of horses is silent as to branding any; expressly provides that they “ upon being delivered shall be examined and inspected without unnecessary delay f implies that during inspection they shall be kept in the “ Government stables” without charge, it is no violation for the officers of the Government subsequently to establish a now form of inspection and refuse to recoivo the horses, unless those rejected be I>rantlcd, and, in ease the Government’s horse-inspectors think there is “manifestly an attempt at fraud,’’ be permanently disfigured; and to require that all be delivered “at least twenty-four hours before inspecting them,” and “when doubtful” “ be Icept three or four days under guard,” and be “fed” and “ hepi” under guard at the expense of the contractor,” till they have been branded and accepted.” There is nothing unreasonable in these regulations, and of them the contractor cannot complain.
    II. A person adjudged guilty of fraud by Government horse-inspectors (whose authority to adjudge contractors guilty of fraud is derived from the regulations of a bureau of the War Department) has no right to complain if they permanently deface and impair the value of his property, not even though he became a contractor before they acquired such powers and never assents to their being exercised on himself.
    
      Findings of the Court of Claims.
    
    1. On tbe 26th clay of February, 1864, at the city of Washington, the claimant entered into a written agreement in due form of law with the defendants through Lieutenant-Colonel James A. Ekin, the chief quartermaster of the Cavalry Bureau, a bureau established by the War Department, aud having charge exclusively of the purchase, care, and custody of cavalry horses; whereby it was agreed—
    
      u First. That the said Daniel Wormer shall have delivered at the Government stables iu Saint Charles, Illinois, by or before the 2Gth day of March next, the following named cavalry horses, to wit: * * * * #
    “ Fourth. It is agreed that the horses, upon being delivered, shall be examined and inspected, without unnecessary delay,, by a person or persons appointed by the United States, and after such inspector shall have certified that they are in all respects as contracted for aud fully equal to the specifications aforesaid, they shall he received, and become the property of' the United States; and all such horses as may he condemned and rejected by said inspectors shall be removed from the stables within one clay after the contractor shall have been notified of said rejection.”
    2. On the 8th March, 1864, after the execution of the contract set forth in the first finding, hut before its performance, the defendants, by Brigadier-General James H. Wilson, chief of the Cavalry Bureau, issued and promulgated, in the State of Illinois, an order whereby the assistant quartermaster and inspectors at Saint Charles were forbidden to inspect or receive-the claimant’s horses, except in pursuance of the terms and directions thereof, which were as follows:
    .“INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSPECTORS OF CAVALRY IIORSES.
    “Hereafter inspectors of horses-acting under instruction from this bureau, will be governed by the following regulations: * * * * *
    “ The senior inspector will cause the horses furnished under each contract, to be placed in ‘the inspection-yard, at least twenty-four hours before inspecting them; at which time he will require every person^ except, his assistants, to leave the yard, and permit no other person to enter it, or handle the horses, until the inspection and branding is completed.
    “ 2. The inspection will be conducted with the view of obtaining sound and serviceable horses, and in such a way as to make it to the advantage of the. .contractor to identify, his interest with those of the Government. , Therefore, all horses presented that are manifestly an attempt at;fraud upon the Government, because of incurable disease, or any purposely concealed defect whatever, shall be branded on the left shoulder with the letter E.
    “3. Horses that are rejected for being under age,in poor condition, or temporarily injured by-transportation, or otherwise, shall be lightly branded on. the front part of the fore hoof, near the coronet, with the letter B, hot to exceed in length three-fourths of an inch. Should any horse thus marked become fit for service before the expiration of one month, he may be again presented for inspection, provided the contractor before presenting him shall notify the .inspector or inspectors of the fact. Inspectors will be particularly.careful in making these re-inspections, and any horse once rejected, that is presented without the required warning, shall be considered as an attempt at a fraud upon the Government, and' be treated as prescribed in paragraph 2.
    “ 5. When horses are doubtful, before branding they may be kept three or four days, tinder' guard, at the expense of the contractor, be again rigidly examined, and then finally disposed of in accordance with the.foregoing rules. No mares will be accepted.
    “ 10. Horses will be fed at the expense of contractors, till they have been branded and accepted.”
    
      3. Immediately after tbe promulgation of the order in the second finding set forth, the claimant applied to the defendants, through the chief of the Cavalry Bureau, to suspend or modify the same so far as to allow him, the claimant, to deliver the horses under his contract, and in pursuance of the terms thereof, and according to the custom prevailing- between the Government and its horse-contractors at the time of the execution of the contract. But the defendants, by their chief of the Cavalry Bureau, refused to suspend or modify said order, and refused to allow the claimant to perform his said contract, except as the same was modified by the provisions of the said order.
    illr. Solicitor-General Bristow and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hill for the appellants.
    
      Mr. M. H. Carpenter, Mr. Ira Harris, and Mr. H. Totten for the claimant.
   Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant demands fifteen thousand dollars from the Government by way of damages for breach of contract. The principal facts are, that on the 2Gth day of February, 1864, the claimant entered into a written agreement with the chief quartermaster of the Cavalry Bureau to deliver at the Government stables in Saint Charles, Illinois, by or before the 26th of March, twelve hundred cavalry horses, sound, and of certain specified ages, height, and quality, and on delivery to be examined and inspected without unnecessary 'delay by a person or persons to be appointed by the Government. Rejected horses were to be removed by the contractor within one day after being notified of their rejection. Payment was to be made on completion of the contract, should Congress have made an appropriation for that purpose, or as soon thereafter as funds might be received. Instructions for inspectors of cavalry horses were issued a few days after the date of the contract, which required, among other things, that horses proposed for sale to the Government must be placed in the inspection-yard at least twenty-four hours before inspecting them; and none but the inspector and his assistants were to be allowed to enter the yard or to handle the horses until the inspection was completed. It was also provided that all horses which were manifestly intended as a fraud upon the Government, because of incurable disease, or any purposely concealed defect, should be branded on the left shoulder with the letter Ii. Horses rejected for being' under age, in poor condition, or injured by transportation, &c., were to be lightly branded on the front part of the fore hoof with the letter E. A large number of other directions were given to inspectors; but these seem to have been the principal ones complained of.. The claimant applied to have these rules modified or suspended in his case, as not having been promulgated when he made his contract; but his application was refused. He therefore threw up his contract, and did not purchase any horses; but alleges that he sustained damages, by not being-allowed to perform his contract untrammeled by the new regulations, to the amount of nine thousand dollars. The Court of Claims found that the regulations' inaterially changed and modified the contract, by throwing upon the claimant, in its performance, increased delay, greater expense, and largely augmented risk; and therefore they gave judgment in his favor for such damages as would make him whole.

We think the court erred in this finding and judgment. The Government clearly had the right to prescribe regulations for the inspection of horses, and there was great need of strictness in this regard, for frauds were constantly perpetrated. We see nothing unreasonable in the regulations complained of. It is well known that horses may be prepared and fixed up to appear bright and smart for a few hours, and it was altogether reasonable that they should be placed in the Government yard for the period required, and that no .person interested in them shoidd be permitted to manipulate them while under inspection. The branding was also a proper and necessary precaution to prevent the same horses being- presented a second time after condemnation. The branding on the foot was of slight importance, and the brand on the shoulder was not to be applied except in cases of absolute fraud. A person guilty of fraud would have no right to complain of the regulation being carried into effect.

As the Government had the right to prescribe all proper and reasonable regulations on the subject, and as the regulations prescribed do not seem to have been unreasonable, the.claimant cannot complain. If he chose, under these circumstances, to fling up bis contract, be must be content to suffer any incidental damage wliicb be may bare incurred in making preparations for its performance. It was a damage voluntarily sustained, and tbe maxim, volenti non fit injuria, applies to tbe case.

Tbe decree is reversed, and the court below is directed to' dismiss tbe petition.  