
    CLARK’S CASE.
    (10 C. Cls., R. 604; 95 U. S. R., 539.)
    Thomas L. Clark, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimcmfs Appeal.
    
    
      An officer of the Quartermaster Department enters into an oral agreement to pay the claimant $150 a day for the me of the steamer Belle, the department to man and run thevessel, andiflost the Government to pay for her. She is lost, while running under this agreement, without fault of the defendants. The owner brings his action on the express agreement to recover for service and loss. Thevessel was previously in the Confederate service. The owner acquired title in 1863/row the Confederate Government. At the time she xvas chartered she-was in Mexican waters, beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.
    
    The court below, being equally divided in opinion, renders judgment for the defendants. The claimant appeals.
    The judgment of the court below is reversed in part. The Supreme Court now holds: (1) That the Act 2d June, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 411), requiring certain public contracts to be in writing, is in the nature of a statute of frauds; (2) That though a parol contract be void, yet if performed in part, the contractor may recover in quantum meruit; (3) That where an implied contract is such as arises upon a bailment for hire, the owner of a vessel cannot recover for her loss in the charterer’s hands, they being without fault; (4) That in an action in the Court of Claims on express contract, the claimant may recover what is justly duo him on the facts pleaded, though the express contract declared upon be void; (5) That when the owners of a vessel brought her within the jurisdiction of the United States on the faith of an agreement that the Government would charter her, an action for her wages cannot be defeated by alleging that the owners bought her of the Confederate Government and have no valid title.
   Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered tbe opinion of the Supreme Court, December 17, 1877.

Mr. Justice Miller (with whom concurred Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Hunt) dissented as to the construction given to the Act 2d June, 1882 (12 Stat. L., 411), and held that the act was directory to the officer and not mandatory upon the parties.  