
    (1 Court of Claims R., p. 243.)
    Jared H. Clark et al., Appellants, v. The United States, Appellees.
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    
      Contractors execuie a formal contract in the belief that it is for the sale of 9,000 bushels of potatoes deliverable as required, when in fact it is for “such quantities (not exceeding 3,000 bushels per week) as may be required.” There has been previous correspondence between them and a commissary which misled them into this belief; but they have the contract in their possession two weeks before executing it. It follows the terms, of the Government’s advertisement instead of the terms of the contractors’ bid, and in this differs from the correspondence between the parties. The Court of Claims decides that fraud or mistake cannot be imputed where the formal contract remains two iveelcs in the parties’ possession before execution, merely because it does not follow the terms of his offer, and differs from correspondence previously passing between him and the other party.
    
    The question of fraud or mistake as to the execution of a formal written contract, differing in terms from the contractor’s proposals, and from correspondence previously passing between the parties, is a question of fact and not of law. Upon it the finding of the Court of Claims is conclusivo, and cannot bo reviewed in the Supreme Court.
    
      Mr. John Joliffe for the appellants.
    
      Mr. Solicitor Norton for the appellees.
    
      
       Decided at the December term of the Supreme Court, 1867, but not reported in Wallace.
    
   Mr. Justice Grier

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff’s claim in this case is on a contract made with Major DuBarry, an assistant commissary of subsistence, actiDg in bebalf of the United States. The only question of law raised upon the record was whether the written agreement between the parties should be received as the correct exponent of the contract, or the correspondence between them which preceded it.

The question of fraud or mistake was one of fact, and was negatived by the finding of the court, which is conclusive here. The question of law ought not to have been made either in that court or here. Let the judgment of the Court of Claims be

AFFIRMED.  