
    THOMAS P. MORGAN v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    [No. 256.
    Decided February 11, 1884. ]
    
      On the Facts.
    
    A contract is made by the Board of Public Works for improvements on Mount Vernon Place, a government reservation. It contains the usual provisions that the work shall be measured and certified by the chief engineer. The contractor is paid accordingly, after which Congress reimburse the District for its outlay. The Commissioner of Public Buildings then remeasures the work and reports more than the contractor was paid for.
    I. The court reiterates the conclusion that a contractor who received certificates of indebtness in payment of his demand, and sold them for less than their nominal value, cannot recover the difference.
    
      II.A contractor paid for work done for the District of Columbia on a government reservation cannot afterward attack the measurements by-showing that the District was reimbursed for a larger amount of work than its officers allowed to him.
    III. Measurements made and vouchers given by the Commissioner of Public Buildings, pursuant to statutes whoso object was to reimburse the District of Columbia for expenses incurred on government property, cannot be used in a controversy between the District and its contractors.
    IV. The District Claims Act (1 Supplmt. Rev. Stat., p. 562) makes the certificates of measurement given by the engineers of the District prima facie evidence. They cannot be impeached by an official report of measurements made by another public officer for other purposes in transactions between other parties.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The claimant presented the same ground for a recovery in this case which was presented by him in his case reported at p. 156, ante, but the court declined to reconsider it. The claimant also sought to recover upon the following facts:
    I. On the 12th of September, 1872, a contract in writing, numbered 513, was entered into between the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, party of the first part, and the claimant, party of the second part, whereby the claimant agreed to furnish material and labor for certain improvements upon the reservation known as Mount Vernon Place, in the city of Washington, at the prices and upon the terms therein specified, the material parts of which involved in the present controversy are as follows:
    “Eighth. And it is further agreed that partial payments shall be made by the duly authorized financial agent of the said party of the first part on the monthly estimates of the chief engineer of the board of public works aforesaid; and that whenever the said chief engineer aforesaid shall certify, in writing, that the party of the second part completely performed this contract on his part, and shall submit with said certificate his estimate of the amount due the party of the second part, then * * * the said party of the second part shall be entitled to receive the full amount due under this contract, deducting therefrom all previous partial payments which may have been made as hereinafter mentioned.
    “And it is further expressly agreed that no money shall become due and payable under this contract except upon the certificate of said engineer, as hereinbefore provided; and the said party of the second part further agrees that he shall not be entitled to demand or receive payment for any portion of the aforesaid work except in the manner set forth in this agreement; and when each and all of the stipulations hereinbefore mentioned are complied with, and the engineer shall have given his certificate to that effect, a final settlement shall be made in writing between the parties, and the whole amount found due the party of the second part under this contract shall be paid to him, excepting such sum or sums as may be retained under any provision of this contract.”
    II. The claimant proceeded with the work, and from time to time, from October 21,1872, to September 12, 1873, he received from the auditor of said board, upon partial measurements, as provided for in the contract, certificates in the following form, with receipt attached thereto:
    “No. — .] “Office of Auditor,
    “Board of Public Works,
    “ Washington, D. 0.,--, 1872.
    “ I hereby certify that I have this day audited aud allowed the account of Thomas P. Morgan for work on reservation bet. 7th and 9th sts. and N. Y. and Mass, ave’s, amounting to one thousand dollars.
    “$--. Benjamin N. Meed, Auditor.
    
    “Received, Washington, D. C.,--, 1872, from Ool. J. A. Magruder, treasurer board of public works,-dollars, on account of work done on reservation between 7th and 9th west and Massachusetts and New York avenues.
    “ Thos. P. Morgan.”
    III. After the work was all completed a final measurement was made, as provided by the contract, aud was certified as follows:
    “ I hereby certify that I have measured and inspected the work done by Thos. P. Morgan on the improvement of Mt. Yernon Place, N. W., from 7th to 9th, in squares--, embraced in his bill dated July 24, 1873, which work was done under the order of the board of public works (Contract No. -, 187-), and find it correct as to quantity and quality, and that the work has been done and material and labor furnished as per contract and specifications.
    “B. Oertly,
    
      “Assistant Engineer.
    
    “Dated July 24, 1873.
    “Approved July 24, 1873.
    “Adolf Cluss,
    
      11 Engineer B. P. W.”
    
      December 1,1875, the board of audit, under the Act June 20, 1874, chap. 337, sec. 6 (18 Stat. L., 119), stated the account between the parties, found a balance due the claimant of $5,277.51 (after retaining $5.60), and the same was paid to him by a certificate of the board, as provided by said act. The following is a copy of the claimant’s receipt for said certificate:
    “ Received, this 20th day of December, 1875, from the board of audit, their certificate, No. 19427, for $5,277.51, in full settlement of the above-stated claim.
    “ H. J. McLaughlin,
    “ Attorney for Thos. P. Morgan.”
    It does not appear that the claimant did any other work or any greater amount of work than he has been paid for, nor that the measurements upon which he was paid were incorrect.
    After the passagé of the Act January 8, 1873, chap. 18 (17 Stat. L., 405), and the Act March 3,1873, chap. 227 (17 Stat. L., 510, 526), in order to obtain for the board of public works or the District the money therein appropriated to pay the expenditures of the board for improvements adjoining the property of the United States, and to complete improvements of streets and avenues opposite and around government property, the officer in charge of the public buildings and grounds measured the improvements on and around Mount Yernon Place, and gave vouchers, with his approval of the prices claimed therefor, and the vouchers so given were paid out of the public Treasury to the District or the board of public works, as provided by said acts. This amount so paid was larger than the amount paid to the claimant for work done by him on and around said Mount Yernon Place.
    
      Mr. J. 8. Bradford for the claimant.
    
      Mr. J. O. Fay (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendant.
   Richardson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant did work for the District on and around a government reservation called Mount Yernon Place, in Washington, under a written contract with the Board of Public Works. When his work was completed it was measured by the chief engineer of the District, according to the terms of the contract, an account was stated, between the parties by the public officers whose duty it was to do so, and he was paid by certificates of indebtedness for the full amount found due, and receipted for the same. Subsequently he sold said certificates at their market value, which was at a great discount from their face value, or exchanged them for bonds of the District, the market value of which was also below their face value.

He now claims judgment for the difference between the face value and the market value of the securities accepted by him in payment for his work.

This raises precisely the same question which we considered and decided recently iu another case of this same claimant (ante, p. 156), and it is unnecessary to set out again our reasons for holding that such a claim has no foundation in law and cannot be allowed. We refer to the opinion in that case .for an exposition of our views on that subject, and for that purpose we make it a part of our opinion in this case.

The claimant makes another demand for money had and received by the defendant to his use, under the following appropriations by Congress:

“ To enable the Secretary of the Interior to pay the expenditures made by the board of public works of the District of Columbia for paving roadway, and curbing and paving sidewalks, grading, sewerage, and other improvements upon and adjoining the property of the United States in the District of Columbia, one million two hundred and forty-one thousand nine hundred and twenty dollars and ninety-two cents, or so much thereof as may be necessary.
“Provided, That all payments made under this appropriation shall be made only upon vouchers approved by the officer m charge of the public buildings and grounds of the District, after full examination and measurement of said improvements, and the approval of the prices claimed therefor.
‘•'■And provided, further, That the said board of public works be, and they are hereby, prohibited from incurring or contracting further liabilities on behalf of the United States in the improvement of streets, avenues, and reservations beyond ’the amount of the appropriations previously made by Congress, and from entering into any contract touching such improvement on behalf of the United States, except in pursuance of appropriations made by Congress. (Aet January 8,1873, ch. 18,17 Stat. L., 405.)
u To reimburse the board of public works for work done around government reservations, not heretofore paid, one hundred and six thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars.
“To complete improvements of streets and avenues now in progress opposite and around government property, nine hundred and -thirteen thousand four hundred and ninety-seven dollars and twenty-six cents: Provided, That all payments made under this and the two preceding appropriations shall be made only upon vouchers approved by the officer in charge of the public buildings and grounds of the District, after full examination and measurement of said improvements, and the approval of the prices claimed therefor.” (Act March 3, 1873, ch. 227, 17 Stat. L., 526.)

Measurements were made and vouchers given by the Commissioner of Public Buildings and Grounds, upon which the District received more, under said appropriations, for work on and around Mount Yernon Place than it had paid to the claimant for his work there.

But the measurements thus made by the Commissioner are not proof of the quantity of work done by the claimant. The Commissioner might haVe erred in his measurements, or might have included therein work not done by the claimant. The vouchers given by him, whether right or wrong, were sufficient, if not conclusive, for the payment of the money to the District from those appropriations; but they were not only not binding, but they were not evidence, prima facie or otherwise, in any controversy between the present parties in relation to their contract and settlements with each other.

Had the Commissioner certified to less work than was done by the claimant, that fact would not have reduced the claimant’s demand for the amount due him, as established in the manner expressly agreed upon between them. So if he certified to more the claimant cannot demand for the excess.

By their own agreements the parties fixed and determined how and by whom the measurement of the claimant’s work should be made for the purpose of settlement between them. The contract expressly provides that the measurements shall be made by the engineer of the Board of Public Works or his assistants; that partial payments shall be made on the monthly estimates of the chief engineer of the board; and when said chief engineer shall certify, in writing, that the contractor has completely performed his contract on his part, and shall submit with said certificates his estimate of the amount due the contractor, then he shall be paid in full. By these provisions both parties were bound. The District claims Act, giving jurisdiction to this court (Supplement to Rev. Stat., 562), makes those certificates prima facie evidence, and if resisted by either party it must be made to appear wherein they are erroneous. (Neitzey’s Case, 17 C. Cls. R., 111.) They cannot be impeached by the official report of measurements made by other public officers, for other purposes, in transactions between other parties.

The settlement between the parties remains unimpeached, and the findings show that the claimant has been paid for all the work done by him on his contract, and his petition must be dismissed.  