# Opposition Brief — Johnson & Higgins of Cal. v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0262%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1933 - **Citation:** 287 U.S. 459 ## Text No. 166 Inthe Supreme Court of the United States OctToBER TERM, 1932 JOHNSON & HIGGINS OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER Vv. THE UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION Page = iW idhcathnskddehiedetveddhionewsnentetinoann 1 é iit Aid oes ca hcivasiinnt pidaciiehimenecemie genie btapoenerincchmaes 1 ¥ Nig vin ai vigsiiinkknninermaiamedoaukiens kates 2 3 CESS Gchivcd cheno naLabentwekiacnsnudassnwawnae 2 FE hits 6 owners of cargo is not such as to constitute them participants in a common venture, and that, there- fore, the Government is not liable for losses to which the principles of general average would nor- mally apply. II Even if there was an obligation on the part of the United States to contribute in general average, the Army Transport officer had no authority to enter into a contract for the services of general average adjusters. Liability on the part of the Government in contract can be created only by an officer who is lawfully authorized to make the contract in ques- tion or to perform acts from which a contract can be implied in fact. Eastern Extension A. & C. Tele- graph Company v. United States, 251 U. 8. 355, 366. There is nothing in the record to show that an ad- ministrative officer of the Army Transport Serv- ice is authorized to enter into contracts for the preparation of statements of general average. On the contrary, it may reasonably be supposed that such services could have been adequately performed by the accounting and auditing officers of the Gov- ernment. It is well settled that persons dealing with public officers are bound to inquire as to the extent of their authority. Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406. Petitioner contends that even if the agreement was void by reason of lack of authority on the part of the contracting officer, nevertheless it is entitled to recover the fair value of the services rendered. 7 The authorities cited do not support this conten- tion. In those cases there was no question of lack of authority. The contracts fuiled because of fraud in one case and failure to reduce the agreement to writing in the other. Moreover, in the instant case there is nothing to show that the Gov- ernment derived any benefit from the petitioner’s services, and recovery in quantum meruit is based upon the value to the recipient of the services or ma- terials furnished. Thomas v. Brownsville, ete., R. R. Company, 109 U.S. 522, 525. CONCLUSION The decision of the Court below is correct and is not in conflict with any other decision. The ques- tion presented does not seem to be of sufficient gen- eral importance to warrant review by this Court. The petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted. Y Tuomas D. THACHER, Solicitor General, CHARLES B. Rua, Assistant Attorney General. ‘ Wuirney NortTH SEYMOUR, Special Assistant to the Attorney General. / CHARLES F., KINCHELOE, . J. FRANK STALEY, we H,. Brian HouLuanp, , Witiiam H. Riney, Jr., Attorneys. Avaust, 1932. U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1932 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_0262%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.