
    MISS ENGLISH’S CASE. S. T. Dougherty, Executrix of Lydia S. English, v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The claimant’s testatrix leases certain premises in Georgetown to the War Department at a rent of $300 a month, to commence Jul/y 1, 1861. This rent is paid for one year, and then reduced l>y the department to $200 a mouth, and the lessor notified. During the remainder of the time of the continmuee of 
      
      the lease, $200 a month is paid and receipted for by the lessor in thirty-six receipts, each stating the amount received as being in full for the rent of the month specified. After the rent is reduced to $200, the lessor requests that it may be restored, which is deelined. On the 25th of June, 1865, the premises are vacated, and, at the request of the lessor, the rent at the rate of $200 a month is paid up to the 1st of July, 1865, and receipted for as in full for the rent of the previous month. The rent at the rate o/$300 is note claimed for the whole time the 'premises were occupied by the United States.
    
    I. Where premises are rented at a specific rate for the month, and after the expiration of a year the lessee notifies the lessor that the rent is reduced, and the lessor allows the lessee to continue in possession, receives the monthly rent at the reduced rate, and gives receipts therefor in full for the month, he thereby assents to the change in the original contract.
    II. When a lessor requests the reduced monthly rent of premises to he raised to the original sum specified in the lease and it is refused, and he continues to give receipts in full for the rent as reduced at the end of each month, it confirms the inference that the alteration of the contract is assented to by him.
    
      Mr. T. J. D. Fuller for tbe claimant:
    Surgeon General Finley makes written application to Quartermaster General Meigs for permission to rent tbe premises described, accompanying it witb tbg written proposition of Miss English, , of tbe terms sbe would lease to tbe United States, under date of June 24,1861.
    On tbe same day General Meigs directs Captain Sucker to close tbe contract witb Miss English on tbe terms sbe proposes.
    On tbe same'day General Eucker enters into tbe contract on tbe terms proposed, promising, on behalf of tbe United States, to pay $300 per month, payable monthly, for tbe premises described, so long as the United States shall occupy; tbe possession and rent to commence on1 tbe 1st day of July, 1861.
    Eent was paid at that rate for one year, to July 1,1862.
    On tbe 1st of July, 1862, tbe rent was reduced from $300 per month to $200 per month, by direction of Acting Quartermaster General, and Captain Camp so informed.
    Miss English protested.
    June 26,1865, Miss English was notified, in writing, by Captain Crowell, that tbe occupation and rent of her building would cease on that day, sbe claiming rent for tbe whole month. She subsequently was paid at tbe rate of $200 per month for that entire month, ending June 30, 1865.
    The breach of contract consists in arbitrarily reducing the rent $100 per month for the period of thirty-sis months.
    The letter of Captain Dana to Miss English, under date of August 18,1864, states the contract and the breach of it, and alleges the lame excuse for so doing, that when the United States hired the premises, and agreed to pay rent at $300 per month 44during its occupation of the same,” the United States thought they should not want to occupy it so long.
    The claimant abandons the claim made in the petition, for the full rent of the month of October, 1864, it having been ascer-* tained since the filing of the petition that the rent for that month was paid by another disbursing officer at the rate of $200 per month.
    The sum for which the petition asks judgment is thirty-six months, at $100 per month, short payment under the contract — $3,600.
    
      The Assistmt Attorney General for the defendants:
    On the 24th of June, 1861, the government, through the quartermaster’s department; agreed to rent from Lydia S. English 4 4 her buildings and grounds, known as the Female Seminary, situate in Georgetown, D. C.,” at a monthly rent of $300 during its occupation by the United States. For one year this rent was paid; and then the rent was reduced to $200 per month. This reduced rent was received by Miss English for two years without protest or complaint; in fact, she never complained of. it. After the end of the two years she requested that the rent 44originally agreed upon” be paid from that time — saying nothing about the past. Upon an examination of the matter by Captain E. E. Camp, assistant quartermaster, he reported that the rent of $200 per month was ample and fully equal to the rates paid for the other property occupied by the government for any length of time; and thereupon the request of Miss English was refused. For another year the rent of $200 was paid monthly, and received without complaint.
    Three years and a half afterward, and over two years after the decease of Miss English, this suit is brought to recover the difference between $300 and $200 per month for three years.
    
      I. The receipts of Miss English are evidence of a settlement of any claim for rent.
    
    II. The receipts are evidence of a new agreement betiveen the parties.
    
    When tbe rent was reduced, it is to be presumed that something was said about it by the parties — Miss English and Captain Camp. He probably stated to her that the rent of $300 was agreed to be paid u on the supposition that the government occupation would be but temporary f that it was too much ; and that the government would either pay her $200 per month, or she could have possession of the property. There is no pretence that she was forced to lease the property, or to receive the $200 rent. It was all voluntary. What reply Miss English made to Captain Camp at the time, we have no means of knowing; but she received the reduced rent for two years without complaint. No complaint was made about the rent until after the government had given up the property and paid (or offered to pay) a fractional month’s rent; she insisted upon rent for the entire month, at the rate of $200, which was paid.
    That a written contract may be varied, waived, or annulled by a subsequent agreement not in writing, is established by the case of George Cummins et al. v. Smith Arnold, -3 Metcalf Mass., p. 486, and the cases there cited.
    III. A portion of the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
    
   Losing, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The petitioner claims against the Hnited States $3,600 upon a lease of premises in Georgetown.

And the court find the facts to be—

That on the 24th of June, 1861, Miss English, the testatrix, leased to the United States the buildings and grounds in Georgetown, known as the Female Seminary, to be used as a military hospital, at a rent of $300 per month, to be paid monthly, during their occupation by the' United States. The occupation and rent to commence July 1,1861.

The United States occupied the premises from the 1st of July, 1861, to June 25,1865, and they paid monthly to said testatrix the rent reserved of $300 per month, up to July 1, 1862.

On July 1,1862, the rate of rent was reduced by the United States to $200 per month, and Miss English was notified of such reduction.

The rent of $200 per month was paid monthly by the United States to Miss English, from the 1st of July, -1S62, to the 1st of July, 1865, and receipted for by Miss English in thirty-six receipts, each stating the amount received to be in full for the rent for the month specified in the receipt.

On July 25, 1864, during the occupation of the premises by the United States, Miss English, by her letter of said date addressed to the Hon. E. M. Stanton, Secretary of War, requested that she might receive from the first day of said July, 1864, “ the rent originally agreed upon” of $300 per month. This request was not acceded, to by the United States, and Miss English was so informed, and that the original rent was fixed on the supposition that the government occupation would be but temporary, and that the monthly rent of $200 was fully equal to the rates paid for other property occupied for any length of time by the government.

The premises leased were surrendered by the United States to Miss English on June 25,1865, and by a letter dated July 21,1865, and addressed to “ Hon. J. K. Barnes, Surgeon General,” Miss English requested that the rent of the whole of the month of said June, 1865, might be paid to her, and $200 was paid to her by the United States, for the rent for said month of June, and she receipted for it as in full for said month’s rent.

The petitioner claimed $100 per month from the 1st of July, 1862, to the 1st of July, 1865, being the difference between tlie rent originally reserved, and that iiaid during said time, and amounting to the sum of $3,600.

The defendants pleaded the statute of limitations as to rent accruing in and for the months of July, August, September, October, November, and December, 1862.

And on the facts stated above the court adjudge that said petition be dismissed.

When the rent was reduced by the United States from $300 to $200 per month, Miss English was notified of the reduction, and no express dissent or assent by her is shown by the evidence. But it is shown that the United States continued to occupy the premises, and that Miss English continued to receive and receipt for the reduced rent monthly, by receipts stating each amount received to be in full for the time it specified; and we think the inference from these facts is, that she preferred to Receive the reduced rent rath.er than the surrender of the premises, which she might have required, and therefore she assented to the change of the original contract.

And we think her letter to the Secretary of War, dated July 25, 1864, requesting the restoration of the original rent, for the future occupation of the premises, taken in connection with the reply to that letter, and the subsequent occupation of the premises by the Dnited States, and her subsequent receipts of the reduced rent, in no way repels but rather confirms the inference stated.

It is undoubtedly true, as urged by the counsel for the petitioner, that a contract cannot be altered by one of the parties to it, and that a receipt may be explained. We think the evidence shows that Miss English assented to the alteration proposed by the Dnited States, and that there is nothing shown to qualify the receipts in full that she gave.  