
    JESSE B. HUSE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [44 C. Cls. R., 19; 222 U. S. R., 406.]
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    A mail-messenger contract, in the usual form prescribed by the department, requires the contractor, to personally inform himself “ of the amount and character of the service that mil be required.” He is informed and knows when he executes the contract that the service will be the carrying of all the mails entering or going out from the Union Station in Omaha. Subsequently he protests against being compelled to carry the mails brought into the Union Station on the trains of three railroads not named in the advertisement. Ultimately the Postmaster-General annuls the contract because of the contractor’s “ failure and refusal to comply with the instructions of the Postmaster-General ” and for his failure to comply with the terms of the contract. The annulment being caused by the claimant’s neglect to perform according to the terms of the contract, the Postmaster-General refuses to allow him the one month’s extra pay allowed in cases where the contractor is not delinquent but the public interests require the discontinuance of the service.
    The court below decides:
    
      J. Where the advertisement and instructions to bidders notify a contractor that the mail service described in the advertisement is “ approximate ” and that a bidder must inform himself “ of the amount and character of the service,” and the contractor is informed and knows that the existing service involves the carrying of all the mails that come into or go out from a designated railroad station, such service will be deemed the subject of the contract though the term “ all the mails ” is not used in either the advertisement, the instructions to bidders, or the contract.
    II. The Post-Office advertisements and instructions to bidders east upon mail-messenger contractors the duty and responsibility of ascertaining the amount and character of the service to be performed; and where the contract is equally explicit the contractor is bound to know what may be required of him and can not evade the obligation by saying that some of the railroads bringing mails into a designated station were not specified in the advertisement.
    III. Where a mail-messenger contract was annulled because of the contractor’s neglect and failure to perform he is not entitled to the one month’s extra pay which is to be allowed a contractor not in fault where the public interests require a discontinuance of the service.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Lurton

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 9, 1912.  