
    SWEENEY'S CASE. Thomas C. Sweeney, appellant, v. The United States, appellees.
    (5 Court of Claims R., p. 285; not yet reported in Wallace.)
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    
      A steamer is chartered lnj a quartermaster at $200 a day. She is ordered to a point within the limits of another military department and remains there under the control of another quartermaster. He states her accounts from the time she came within his department at $140 a day, and none of the accounts or receipts refer to the charter-party. The owner remonstrates at the rate allowed, and subsequently a settlement is made with him by the quartermaster allowing $5 a day in addition. Ihe owner accepts this and receipts for it as “ in full of the above account.” No release under seal is given. Subsequently he brings suit for the balance remaining on the charter-party rate o/$200 a day. The 
      
      Court of Claims decides that the facts stated rendered the demand a doubtful and disputed claim which might be the subject of a valid parol compromise, and that the payment and acceptance of the sum named constituted such a compromise. Judgment for the-defendants. The claimant appeals.
    
    I. Claims against the Government which are disputed by the officers authorized to adjust such accounts may be compromised. If the claimant voluntarily enters into such a compromise, accepting a smaller sum than his demand, and giving a receipt in full for the whole, he is bound by the adjustment.
    II. Where the charter-party of a vessel in the military service expresses an agreed rate of $200 a day, and the vessel passes under the control of another quartermaster who states her accounts for the time she is in his department, without referring in terms to the charter-party, at $140 a day, and the owner, after remonstrating at the amount allowed, accepts an addition of $5 a day, and gives a receipt “ as in full of the above account,” it must be held that the charty-party was superseded and the claim in fact was in quantum meruit, and as such the proper subject of a compromise.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The facts found by the court below are substantially stated in the opinion now delivered.
    
      Mr. James Hughes for the claimant, appellant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Hill for the United States, appellees.
   Mr. Justice Clieeokd

delivered the opinion of the court:

Claims against the United States which are disputed by the officers authorized to adjust such accounts may be compromised, and if "the claimant voluntarily enters into such a compromise, and accepts a smaller sum than the claim and executes a discharge in full for the whole claim, he is bound by the adjustment, and cannot sue for what be voluntarily relinquished.

Sweeney was the owner of the steamer Ben. Franklin, and on the 3d of March, 1863, he chartered the steamer to the United States for $170 per day, the charter-party being signed by the owner of the steamer and an assistant quartermaster, without any stipulation as to the term of service. He complained of the rate allowed, and subsequently applied for an increase, and the quartermaster at Saint Louis directed that the steamer should be allowed $200 per day, by an in-dorsement on the application. She continued under the first contract, and was borne upon the returns of the assistant quartermaster for the months of March and April following, but the claimant was only paid at that rate up to the 20th of March, nor was the steamer borne upon the returns of the assistant quartermaster after April of that year. He ordered her to proceed to Milliken-’s Bend, in the Mississippi River, and in so doing she passed within the'limits of another military department’and came under the control of another assistant quartermaster, where she remained until the 17th of September following, when she was discharged.

It was denied by the assistant quartermaster that the steamer was retained in service' under the original charter-party, and he stated the account for her services from the 21st of March to the 31st of July at $140 per day, which was regularly paid by the assistant quartermaster, and was duly receipted for by the claimant, and it appears that none of those accounts or receipts make any reference to the charter-party.

Complaint was made by the owner of the steamer that the compensation allowed was insufficient, and the assistant quartermaster, on the 19th of December of that year, made a settlement with the claimant and increased the allowance to $145 per day, and the finding of the Court of Claims shows that the account made out in that way was received and receipted by the claimant11 as in full of the above account,n being the account-made out in that way for the services of the steamer.

Enough appears to satisfy the court that the charter-party was superseded and that the claim was in fact for a quantum meruit, and as such that it was the proper subject of compromise within the principle adopted and applied in the case of Mason v. The United States, decided at the present term, (ante.) Prior to the adjustment, the sum allowed was $140 per day, but that allowance was not. satisfactory to the claimant, and the assistant quartermaster, as matter of compromise, agreed to add $5 per day in addition to that allowance, and the claimant having accepted the offer, received the money and executed a discharge in full of the claim, cannot prosecute a suit in the Court of Claims for what he voluntarily relinquished in the compromise.

Parties may adjust their own disputes, and when they do so voluntarily and understandingly no appeal lies to the courts to review their mutual decision.

Decree affirmed.  