
    GEORGE K. OTIS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (20 C. Cls. R., 315; 120 U. S. R., 115.)
    
      Both parties Appeal.
    
    The claimant holds two contracts, the one for “ mail-messenger service in the city of Neiv York,” the other for “ mail-station" service. The first prohibits additional compensation for additional service; the second allows it. The questions presented are: Whether certain additional services fall under the one contract or the other ? Whether the certificate of the New York postmaster is conclusive against the Government? Whether the restriction of the first contract precludes the contractor from recovering additional compensation where the new service was rendered beyond the limits of the city of New York ?
    The court below decides :
    (1) Where mails in the city of New York were collected at a post-office station and delivered at a railroad depot, the service, being local, came within the local contract for mail-station service, and not within the transfer contract for mail-messenger service.
    {2) Where mails were conveyed from the city post-office to the Harlem Railroad depot, the service, being between the central office and a railroad depot, was a transfer service, and within the mail-messenger contract.
    •(3) The certificate of the New York postmaster is competent to prove the necessity for and due performance of a mail-transportation service in that city, but can not be admitted to determine as a matter of law under which of two contracts a service was rendered.
    {4) Though a city-transfer contract provides for “new or additional mail-messenqer or transfer service in said city" “without additional compensation," yet the post-office can not compel the contractor to take the mails to another city, over the line of another contractor, for delivery there to him, unless there be a specific provision therefor in the contract.
    (5) Where “new or additional service" may be required of a contractor without increased compensation, it must be construed to mean service similar in nature to that embraced in the general intent of the contract, and not an increase of an exceptional service specifically provided for, which properly might form part of another instrument.
    
      (6) A contract prepared at the post-office, leaving to the contractor no choico as to form or phraseology, must be construed in a doubtful case in favor of justice and against the Government.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Blatchford

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 24, 1887.  