
    JULIA A. NUTT, Executrix, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 15652.
    Decided January 30, 1888.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    Congress, "by a private act, directs the Quartermaster-General “ to examiner an d adjust the claims of Julia A. Knit,” and “report the facts to Congress, to be considered with other claims reported by the Quartermaster-General.” He makes a report recommending the payment of Sá56,884.05. An appropriation of $35,556.17 is made by a statute which directs the payment of specified amounts to a number of persons “ in each ease as af nil and final discharge of the several claims ■ examined and allowed by the proper accounting officers.” This amount is paid to the claimant; but as her claims were never examined by the accounting officers, it is maintained that her acceptance does-not operate as a full and final discharge.
    I. A final award in which pre-existing demands are merged, and upon which an action can be maintained, involves the mutual submission of contested rights to the final determination of an arbitrator.
    II. Where no single right, legal or equitable, was submitted to the arbitrament of the Quartermaster-General, whose only duty, after examining and adjusting the claim, was to report the facts for the-consideration of Congress, his report has no element of a final award.
    
      III. “An account stated ” grows out of commercial transactions, "being tbe 'rendition of a running account by one party to the other, and his acceptance or acquiescence in its accuracy and amount. It is, in legal effect, the liquidation of fractional items into a single amount by the agreement of parties, express or implied.
    IV. In the official report of an executive officer, there is no single element of an account stated.
    V.A private act directing the Quartermaster-General to investigate and report' upon a claim is the instruction of a principal to his agent to invesügate a demand presented by a third person, the claimant, and report the facts for the consideration of his principal, Congress. [Affirmed, videpost.J
    
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
    This case, appealed and submitted at tbe same term, was affirmed by tbe Supreme Court. The following are tbe facts upon which tbe case was considered in both courts:
    I. On tbe 22d December, 1882, tbe Quartermaster-General, •acting under and pursuant to tbe Act for the relief of Julia, A. Nutt, widow and executrix of Haller Nutt, deceased, 7th August, 18S2 (22 Stat. L., 734), reported to Congress, through tbe Secretary of War, that be bad examined tbe claims of Mrs. Julia A. Nutt, as widow and executrix, and tbe nature and manner of bis investigation and tbe circumstances and evidence relating to tbe same. He further reported as follows:
    All the evidence considered, as well as tbe additional information I have been able to gather, warrants me in recommending that Julia A. Nutt be paid for tbe following items, which, in my judgment, are sufficiently proved by the evidence, viz:
    1 cotton-gin and mill, burnt by General Grant’s troops. §20,000.00
    1 cypress fence (complete) burned for fuel by General Grant’s
    troops. 3,686.40
    
    Household goods talren by Grant’s troops. 7,155.00
    ÍÍ7 horses and. mules, at §150 each. 4,050.00
    100 loads fodder. 1,500.00
    15 bushels corn, at §1 per bushel (receipt filed). 15.00
    153.700 bricks, at §7 per M, taken by Union troops. 1,075.90
    122,000 feet cypress lumber, at §45 per M feet, taken by Union
    troops. — . 5,490.00
    8,289.6 feet cypress fence (complete). 1,119.12
    8 horses, at §150 each (receipt filed). 900.00
    5 halters, 35 cents each (receipt filed). 1.75
    700 bales of cotton burned in gin, 426 pounds to the bale, at 37-Jr
    cents per pound. 111,328.00
    4,000 cords of wQod, at §3.50 per cord. 14,000.00
    1.700 acres corn, 40 bushels to acre, 68,000 bushels, at §1 . 68,000.00
    
      1,700 acres peas, 10 bushels to acre, 17,000 bushels, at $2. $17,000.00
    2 lcegs of uails, at $6 . 12.00
    2 cans of lard oil, at $15. 30.00
    100 barrels of pork, at $15.21 per barrel.. 1,521.00
    Total. 256,884.05
    II. The foregoing report was transmitted direct by the Secretary of War to Congress, and was not transmitted to or acted upon by the accounting officers of the Treasury.
    III. The sum of $35,550.17, directed to be paid to the claimant by the Appropriation Act, Mh July, 1884 (23 Stat. L., 552-580) was by the Treasury Department paid to the claimant, who accepted and received the same. No receipt, discharge, or acquittance of any kind was given by the claimant in consideration of such payment.
    
      Mr. M. F. Morris for the claimant:
    The petitioner’s contention is this: That there was either an arbitration and award, or an account stated, between the United States and herself, in respect of certain claims which she had against the United States; that both parties ratified and affirmed this award, the United States by appropriating, and she by receiving a certain sum of money in partial payment of the award; that neither by the act of appropriation nor by the common law is she barred by her acceptance of such partial payment; that the award, so ratified by both parties, raised an implied contract between herself and the United States that the latter would pay the amount so found to be due; that this court has power to enforce this implied contract; and that, under the act of Congress of March 3, 1887, the court is empowered to award damages, in the shape of interest, for the failure of the United States to perform the contract.
    
      Mr. Sober J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for the defendants :
    The Quartermaster-General was simply an auxiliary to Congress in ascertaining and reporting the facts, and nothing more. His power was ministerial, and not judicial. The attempt to give him any other status is to pervert the intention of Congress, and to improperly construe the act under which he received his authority. Rayburn’s Case (2 Dali., 409), decided in 1792, is in point. This case is cited with approval in United States v. Ferreira (13 How., 50, 51).
    We submit that to “investigate and adjust” a claim, as provided in the Ghorpenning Resolution (16 Stat. L., 673), and to “examine and adjust” the claims as provided in the act in relation to Mrs. Nutt’s claims (22 id., 734), is one and the same thing.
    No account has ever existed. This is evident from the character of the claim and its origin. Without an account upon which to base it there can not be an account stated.'
    It.is, we think, indisputable that the peculiar character of the claim described in the act of August 7,1882, and which the Quartermaster-General was authorized to examine as to the facts, does not come within any definition of an account.
    If there was no account, how then could there have been an account stated?
    The claim in this case did not originate in monetary transactions between the parties. It is not made up of receipts and payments ; not a cent of it has ever been recognized as due from the Government and unpaid; nor has any balance even been admitted by the Government as the true amount be-' tween the parties. Hence it is plain that Mrs. Nutt may have a claim, bnt it does not amount to either an account or an account stated. Zaearino v. Fallotti (49 Conn., 36), says:
    “A ratification is where a person adopts a contract or other transaction which is not binding on him, because it was entered into by an unauthorized agent (Leake Cont., 268) or the like.” (Eapalje & Lawr. Law Diet.)
    To base the claim in this case upon a ratification is in effect to declare the Quartermaster’s report of facts, which is called an award or account stated by the claimant, the act of an unauthorized agent, and to abandon the ground heretofore contended for by the claimant, that the so-called award and account stated ever had any binding force within themselves.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the following opinion:

On the 7th August, 1882, Congress passed an act for the relief of the claimant in the following terms: ,

“That the Quartermaster-General of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to examine and adjust the claims of Julia A. Nutt, widow and executrix of Haller Nutt, deceased, late of Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, growing out of the occupation and use by the U. S. Army, during the late rebellion, of the property of the said Haller Nutt, during his lifetime, or of his estate after his decease, including live stock, goods, and moneys taken and used by the United States or. the armies thereof; and he may consider the evidence heretofore taken on said claim, so far as applicable, before the Commissioners of Claims, and such other evidence as may be adduced before him in behalf of the legal representatives of Haller Nutt, or in behalf of the United States, and shall report the facts to Congress to be considered with other claims reported by the Quartermaster-General: Provided, That no part of said claims upon which said Commissioners of Claims have passed on the merits shall be considered by the Quartermaster-General.” ('Act 7th August, 1S82, 22 Stat. L. 734.)

So far as the present action is involved the following are the important and mandatory words of the act:

“ That the Quartermaster-General is hereby authorized and directed to examine and adjust the claims of Julia A. Nutt, widow and executrix, and shall report the facts to Congress to be considered with other claims reported by the Quartermaster-General.”

The Quartermaster-Geueral accordingly investigated the claims, and on the 22d December, 1882, made a long and minute report to Congress, which detailed the methods of his investigation and concluded by recommending the payment of eighteen items, some of which were for property taken by the Army in Mississippi, some for property destroyed, and all of which amounted to $256,884.05.

This report was considered by Congress and an appropriation of $35,556.17 was made for the claimant by the Act 5th July, 1884 (23 Stat. L., 552-586), a statute which directed the payment of specified amounts to a number of persons named therein,- “ the same being in full for, and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full and final discharge of, the several claims examined and allou-ed by the proper accounting officers under the provisions of the act Ath July, 1864.”

This amount of $35,556.17 was paid to and accepted by the claimant; but inasmuch as her claims were never examined or allowed by the accounting officers under the Act 4th July, 1864, it is maintained by her counsel that her acceptance of that amount does not operate as a full and final discharge, and on tbe contrary leaves her free to maintain ber action for the balance of the amount.

As the property included in the report was taken or destroyed by the Army of the United States engaged in active hostilities in what was then enemy’s territory, no claim arose which courts of the United States could recognize as a right of action ; and this court, moreover, is expressly prohibited by the Aot UhJuJy, 1864 (13 Stat., L., p. 381, § 1), from entertaining j urisdiction of such cases. The claimant therefore rests the case entirely upon the private act of 1882 in connection with the report and recommendation of the Quartermaster-General and the appropriation act of 1SS1.

Thetheory by which the learned counsel for the claimant maintains the case is that the report of the Quartermaster-General was an award, obligatory and final, upon which an action can be founded irrespective of the claims and demands merged therein, or that if not an award it was at least “ an account stated,” recognized and ratified by the appropriation act which directed the payment of what was presumably a portion of the account.

A final award in which pre-existing demands are merged and upon which an action can be maintained involves the mutual submission of contested rights to the final determination of an arbitrator whose decision shall be obligatory upon eithvr party; but the court is of the opinion that in the present case no single right, legal or equitable, was submitted to the arbitrament of the Quartermaster-General, whose only duty, after examining and adjusting the “claims,” was to “report the facts ” for the “ consideration ” of Congress.

As to the second ground taken by counsel the court is of the opinion that “ an account stated ” grows out of commercial transactions, being the rendition of a running account by one party to the other and his acceptance or acquiescence in its accuracy and amount. It is therefore in legal effect but the liquidation of fractional items into a single amount by the agreement of parties, express or implied. In the present case the court is unable to perceive in the report of the Quartermaster-General a single element of an account stated. There was no running account between the parties; there had been no transactions which brought them within the usage or law of merchants; the account was not rendered by one party to the other; time did not run against the Government so as to raise a presumption of acquiescence, and the subsequent payment of a part instead of the whole negatived the idea that the whole was acquiesced in by Congress and acknowledged as an indebtedness.

The private act was simply a direction by a principal, Congress, to an agent, the Quartermaster-General, to investigate a demand presented by a third person, the claimant, and report the facts for the consideration of his principal. If such a statute can be made a basis of legal liability it will be dangerous for Congress to seek information in any case, or give assistance to any claimant.

The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed.  