
    GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ADMR. OF McNAMARA, v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MARGARET R. SHECKELS ET AL., EXECUTRICES OF SHECKELS, v. THE SAME.
    [Nos. 251, 252, 292.
    Decided June 22, 1896.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The suit is hrought under the act 1880. The defendants set up a counterclaim for an overpayment at hoard rates when the contractor was entitled only to contract rates. The claimants now come in under the act 13th February, 1895, which allows to all contractors the rates established and paid by the Board of Public Works.
    
      I.The Act 13th February, 1895 (28 Stat L., p. 064), requires this court to allow to all claimants under the District Claims Act, 1880 (21 Stat. L., p. 284), the rates established and paid by the Board of Public Worts; and in effect sets aside former decisions and leaves nothing for the court to do but to carry out its mandate.
    II.Where judgment upon a counterclaim falls by reason of the statute, a claim for interest thereon falls with it. The rule of law is that when the principal of a debt is extinguished by payment the interest is also extinguished. The rule applies with equal force where the principal is extinguished by a statute.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. Peter McNamara had several contracts with the defendant through the late corporation of Washington, the late Board of Public Works, and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, by extensions thereof, for work and materials, being- a certain, contract with the corporation of Washington and contracts with the Board of Public Works numbered 415 and extensions thereof, 515, 716 and extensions thereof, and 850.
    II. These actions, originally brought under the Act of June 6,1880 (21 Stat. L., 284), on said contracts were consolidated and tried together before a referee, who, after stating the accounts, found and reported, June 8, 1891, as due from defendant under said contracts for work, at contract rates, as follows:
    “I find due the claimants under the several contracts mentioned in cases 251 and 292 the following sums, viz:
    I. Under old corporation contract. $6,119. 36
    II. Under contract No. 515.. 1,065. 06
    III. Under contract No. 850. 1. 00
    IV. Under contract No. 716 and extensions. 1,189.31
    V.Under contract No. 415 and extensions. 7, 044. 04
    Total.. 14,418.77
    “I further report that the sum of $5,119.36 of the above amount was due and payable as of February 1,1872, and that the remaining portion, $9,299.41, was due and payable as of April 1,1876.
    “The amount assigned to S. J. Ritchie, $927.10, is included in amount found to be due under contract No. 716 and extensions.
    “The amount claimed by Theodore Sheckels is included in amount found to be due under contracts 415,716 and extensions.
    
      “In conclusion, I ñnd that in the whole the defendant is entitled to recover of the claimant, McNamara, the sum of $6,694.41, with interest from June 1,1874.”
    III. The referee found that said McNamara had made an assignment to said Theodore Sheckels, deceased, of $7,306.25 of said amounts due from defendant, and an assignment to Samuel J. Edtchie (not a claimant in these cases) of $927.10 of said amounts due from the defendant, leaving a balance due to the estate of said McNamara of $6,183.42.
    IV. Said referee also reported that the accounts stated by him were at contract rates for the work done, and not at rates established and paid by the Board of Public Works; and that on a certain other contract between said McNamara and the Board of Public Works, being contract No. 248, said McNamara had been paid at board rates to the amount of $6,694.41 in excess of amount due at contract rates, which excess was due to the defendant as a counterclaim, with interest from June 1, 1874.
    V. The claimants except to the report as to the whole, finding for the defendant on said counterclaim, both as to principal and interest. The defendant takes no exception to said report, and the same is otherwise adopted as the findings of the court.
    Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court decided as conclusions of law that—
    1. Under the act of February 13,1895, the claimant’s exception is well taken and must be sustained, and the finding of the referee in relation to the counterclaim as to both principal and interest must be overruled.
    2. The administrator of McNamara is entitled to recover the sum of $5,119 36, as due and payable February 1, 1872, and the sum of $1,066.06, as due and payable April 1,1876, within the intent and meaning of said acts of February 13, 1895, and June 6, 1880.
    3. The executrices of Theodore Sheckels are entitled to recover the sum of $7,306.25, as due and payable April 1,1876, within the intent and meaning of said acts.
    
      Mr. J. J. Johnson for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Robert A. Howard for the defendant.
   Richardson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion, of the court:

The decision of these cases turns upon the exception of the claimants to the finding of the referee that the defendant was entitled to recover on the counterclaim with interest from June 1, 1874, as set out in the findings.

The counterclaim arose upon the facts found that McNamara, the contractor, had been paid for his work at "board rates,” to which this court in several cases and the Supreme Court on appeal had decided contractors were not entitled above contract rates. (Roche's Case, 18 C. Cls. R., 217; Barnard, Case, 20 id., 257, and 127 U. S. R., 409; Barnes Case, 22 C. Cls. R., 366; Eslin Case, 22 id., 395, and 29 id., 370.)

The finding as to the amount of counterclaim was correct when the report was made according to those decisions, but Congress since the report, by the Act of February 13, 1895 (28 Stat. L., 664), has required this court to allow the rates established and paid by the Board of Public Works to all claimants, under the former District of Columbia Claims Act (1880, June 10, 21 Stat. L., 284).

The act of February 13, 1895, sets aside those decisions and this counterclaim, reverses the finding of the referee, and leaves nothing for the court to do but to obey its command.

But the referee reports that the defendant is entitled to interest thereon from June 1, 1874, and it is urged for the defendant that this is correct now and that the counterclaim should draw interest from the time the money was paid as reported by the referee, because it was a legal and valid counterclaim until the passage of said act of February 13, 1895.

We can not concur in the contention of the defendant. In the case of Pacific Railroad v. United States (158 U. S. R., 118) the Supreme Court decided that when the principal of a debt is extinguished by payment the interest is also extinguished. This rule of law applies with equal force when the principal is extinguished by act of Congress, and that part of the referee’s report is not adopted.

The administrator of McNamara will have judgment for $5,119.36 as due and payable February 1,1872, and $1,066 as due and payable April 1, 1876, within the intent and meaning of the acts of February 13, 1895, and June 6, 1880. The executrices of Theodore Sheckels will have judgment for $7,306.25, as due and payable April 1, 1876, within the intent and meaning of said acts.  