
    PECK’S CASE.
    (14 C. Cls. R., 84;
    102 U. S. R., —.)
    Campbell K. Peck v. The United States.
    
      On both parties' Appeals.
    
    
      A written contract hinds the claimant to furnish 800 tons of hay near the mouth of Tongue River, Montana. Parol evidence is admitted to show that it was understood at the ttme that the hay must necessarily be out on government lands, and that it ivas Ttnovin to both parties that the only grass available was on the Big Meadows of the Yellowstone. Subsequent to the contract the defendcmts’ 
      
      officers authorize a third person to tañe possession of the Big Meadows and thus prevent the claimant from performing. Eventually they charge Mm with the difference in price and deduct it from moneys due him. The contract also hinds the claimant to furnish 6,000 cords of “good soft wood,” to be cut on a certain reservation. The defendants’ officers compel him to deliver a proportion of dry wood. They also compel him to chop beyond the designated territory. After receiving this order he suspends work until the matter can be referred to the commanding officer of the district, and ultimately is obliged to remove and rebuild the cabins for his men.
    
    The court helow holds: (1) That parol evidence was admissible to show aliunde the written contract that it was known and mutually understood that it could he fulfilled only by cutting bay on Big Meadows; (2) That though the officers were justified in employing third persons to cut hay on Big Meadows, nevertheless the act excused the claimant from performing; (3) That where “good softwoodv was to be furnished for the use of a new military post, it was reasonable to require a proportion of dry wood for the first winter; (4) That where the claimant voluntarily kept his men and teams idle awaiting a decision of the commanding officer of the district, he was not hindered and delayed by the defendants’ officers; (5) That where the claimant wras compelled to cut wood beyond the designated territory, and he complied without objection and accepted the contract price for the wood so out, he could not recover the additional expense thrown upon him. Judgment accordingly. Both parties appeal.
    The judgment of the court helow is affirmed, and upon the same grounds as to the first three points. As to the fourth and fifth points the judgment is reversed, and it is held that the claimant was hindered and delayed by the defendants and that he should recover his damages. The, Supreme Court at the same time considers, hut declines to pass upon, the right of an assignee in bankrujitcy to he substituted as party claimant.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the ease :
    The facts of this ease and the findings upon which it was considered in the Supreme Court will be found fully set forth in 14 O. Cls. B., 84. Certain subsequent proceedings in which the opinion of the Supreme Court relative to the rights of the assignee in bankruptcy was considered will be found ante, p. 364.
   Mr. Justice Beadley

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, March 22, 1880.  