# Henderson v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · December 15, 1868 · 4 Ct. Cl. 75

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6589876

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert J. Henderson v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** December 15, 1868
- **Citations:** 4 Ct. Cl. 75
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nott
- **Judges:** Casey, Losing, Nott
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6589876

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating “there is no reason why the rule should be relaxed in relation to public officers”

## Opinion text

Nott, J.,
concurring:
1 think tbe first question in this case is, whether tbe quartermaster who made tbe contract with tbe claimant was tbe authorized agent of tbe defendants. I agree with tbe majority of tbe court in tbe exposition given to tbe Act July 4,1864, § 4, (13 Stat. L., p. 394,) and hence that be was not. That conclusion is necessarily tbe end of tbe case; and when we determine that bis acts were unlawful, it is not our duty to go further and inquire whether tbe unlawful acts were done in due “ form of law.”
Tbe Act June 2,1862, (12 Stat. L., 411,) which requires a contract to be reduced to writing, bears so strong a resemblance to tbe Act 21st April, 1808, (2 Stat. L., p. 484,) which requires a clause to be inserted in every contract that no member of Congress shall be admitted to participate therein — a statute which this court has always treated as directory and not mandatory —that I do not feel sure that tbe act of 1862 renders by implication all unwritten contracts absolutely void, and therefore upon that point prefer to express no opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6589876. Public record. Not legal advice.