allowed: Provided, That this authorization shall not apply to cases of persons in the employ of the United States: Provided further, That no claim shall be considered under this Act by the Secretary of State unless presented to him within one year from the date of the accrual of said claim: And provided further, That acceptance by any claimant of the amount determined under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in full settlement of such claim against the Government of the United States. Act of Feb. 13, 1936 (49 Stat. 1138); U. S. C. 31: 224a.

for bodily harm caused thereby, applies not only to owner of automobile but also to one who has right to permit and power to prohibit its use. Rounds v. Philips (Md. 1935), 177 Atl. 174.

Liability of father for acts of minor son.- | bodily harm to himself and others, is liable Father, furnishing minor son with automobile, was liable for his negligence, though automobile was first registered in son's name and later in mother's name after son's license was revoked, if father permitted son to drive though knowing of son's recklessness and incompetency in operating automobiles. Rounds v. Phillips (Md. 1934), 170 Atl. 532.

Contributory negligence.-In suit by United States for damages alleged to have occurred to automobile owned by it, defendants held entitled to set up defense that negligence of employee of United States at time of accident was proximate cause of damage. United States v. Moscow Seed Co. (D. C. 1936), 14 F. Supp. 135.

As to any case referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution, the function of decision whether and in what manner to prosecute, or to compromise, or to appeal, or to abandon prosecution, formerly exercised by any agency or officer, is transferred to the Department of Justice by Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, issued under authority of 888c, post.

The office of Solicitor of the Treasury was abolished, and its powers, duties, and functions transferred to the General Counsel for the Treasury Department, by section 512, Revenue Act of May 10, 1934 (48 Stat. 758), which created the latter office.

Rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this section are published in Treasury Department Circular No. 39, May 20, 1936 (Federal Register, May 29, 1936, p. 575).

NOTES OF DECISIONS

In general. By reason of the broad and general terms of this section and in the light of the principle that the sovereign must possess incidental powers necessary to carry general statutes giving general powers into effect, the United States may accept an offer of a railroad company to compromise a claim of the United States against said company in the sum of $204,862.74 for fire trespass, by the payment of $10,000 in cash and the relinquishment of the right of the company to receive from the United States certain lands selected by it in accordance with the terms of a congressional grant. (1933) 37 Op. Atty. Gen. 298.

Authority of Attorney General.-Where liability has been established by a valid judgment, or is certain, i. e.-liquidated or undisputed-and there is no doubt as to

the ability of the Government to collect, there is no room for mutual concessions and therefore no basis for compromise under R. S. 3469; but where there is a bona fide dispute as to either a question of fact or of law, and accordingly room for mutual concession, compromise settlement is not precluded, the adequacy of the offer to be determined by the exercise of sound discretion. This should not, however, be understood to curtail the inherent and statutory power of the Attorney General to absolutely dismiss or discontinue suits in which the Government is interested, and, a fortiori, to terminate the same upon terms at any stage by way of compromise or settlement. (1933) 37 Op. Atty. Gen. 298; MSS. Op. Atty. Gen. Oct. 2, 1934.

724. Priority.

NOTES OF DECISIONS

tractor's receiver and surety in name of United States for claimant's benefit (U. S. C. A. 31:191; U. S. C. A. 40:270). Emmons v. Union Indemnity Co. (N. J. 1934), 175 Atl. 141.

Claims against insolvent contractor. | though statute authorizes suit against conClaim against insolvent surety on insolvent contractor's bond to United States for amount due for labor and materials furnished contractor held not entitled to priority as for debt due United States, 725a. Survival of action to recover damages.-That no civil action to recover damages, brought by the United States or in its behalf, or in which the United States shall be directly or indirectly interested, and pending against any defendant prior to the time of his death, in any court of the United States, shall abate by reason of the death of any such defendant; but any such action shall survive and be enforceable against the estate of any such deceased defendant. This Act shall not be construed to deprive the plaintiff in any such action of any remedy which he may have against a surviving defendant. Act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 311); U. S. C. 28: 780a.

Public exigency excusing submission to withdrawn did not constitute contract. competition.-Circumstances held to show Nason Coal Co. v. U. S. (1928) 64 Ct. Cls. emergency authorizing War Department to 526. purchase, without readvertising for proposals after rejecting unsatisfactory proposals, caskets for reburial of soldiers who died in World War service in France. U. S. v. Heller (D. C. 1932) 1 F. Supp. 1.

Suit to enjoin Army contracting officer from awarding coal contract to lowest bidder for noncompliance with schedule requirements held not maintainable, as being suit against United States. Johnstown Coal & Coke Co., Inc., v. Wilson (D. C. 1932), 60 F. (2d) 557.

Acceptance of bid.-War Department's acceptance of bid for coal after bid was 736. Execution of contracts; general provision. NOTES OF DECISIONS

Requisites and validity; authority to execute. It is axiomatic that Government officials must act within the scope of their authority, and that all persons dealing with them must be held to know the extent of their authority. Alliance Construction Co. v. U. S. (1934), 79 Ct. Cls. 730.

The failure of the Government to comply with statutory requirements relative to public contracts enacted solely for the protection of the Government does not render such contracts void, but only voidable at the Government's option; and only the Government can take advantage of such failure. 38 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 25. Oct. 11, 1935.

Consideration.-Public officers are without authority to make a contract for which the Government receives no benefit or consideration. Vulcanite Cement Co. v. U. S. (1932) 74 Ct. Cls. 693.

Execution. This section applies to contract for sale of surplus property, and the United States is not bound by an un

written contract for such sale. Triad Corporation v. U. S. (1927) 63 Ct. Cls. 151.

Verbal orders for purchase of forage, ratified by formal confirmation orders held sufficient. Miller v. U. S. (1928) 65 Ct. Cls. 506; Dyer & Co. v. U. S. (1928) 65 Ct. Cls. 612; Shofstall Hay & Grain Co. v. U. S. (1928), 65 Ct. Cls. 653.

Telephone company could not recover under alleged implied contract for installation of large telephone switchboard for war use, where installation was covered by written contract with Secretary of Treasury. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. U. S. (1930), 281 U. S. 385.

The signing of a contract by a duly authorized proxy of the contracting officer is not the informality contemplated by the Dent Act. International Arms & Fuze Co. v. U. S. (1932), 76 Ct. Cls. 424.

Forms and provisions.-The proposed contract between the Department of Commerce and the Remington-Rand Company, for the rental of 42 tabulating ma

imply that the parties used meaningless or superfluous words, or that they were ignorant of the meaning of the language employed by them. (2) Courts can not amend or alter the terms of contracts under the guise of construing them. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. U. S. (1932), 75 Ct. Cls. 845.

chines at $1,850 per month, the contract | tract and to avoid a construction that would stipulating that said rental is based upon the understanding that all cards used with the equipment shall be purchased from the lessor and that if such cards are not purchased from the lessor the machine rentals shall be $2,170 per month, is illegal in respect of the restriction upon the purchase and use of cards, which is in violation of Sec. 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 731). The execution of the proposed contract will not impose upon the Department of Commerce any legal obligation to refrain from purchasing cards from other sources, or to pay the increased rental for doing so. (1932), 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 524.

There is no prohibition, express or implied, preventing the head of a department or independent establishment from inserting in contracts for the purchase of supplies such provisions, in addition to those specifically required by statute, as he may deem to be desirable in the interest of the Government or of the public welfare. Such authority must necessarily be included within the discretion vested in him. (1933), 37 Op. Atty. Gen. 199.

A provision in a Government contract that the contractor "will make no claim against the United States by reason of estimates, tests, or representations of any officer or agent of the United States", is valid and binding. Southern Surety Co. v. U. S. (1932), 75 Ct. Cls. 47.

Congress may by statute require Government contracts to contain provisions governing the wages to be paid by the contractors, and for the determination of facts relating thereto by a specified Government official; and whether or not such provisions be actually contained in the contract as written and executed, they become a part of it by virtue of the statute itself. Alliance Construction Co. v. U. S. (1934), 79 Ct. Cls. 730.

By parties.-Practical construction of contract by parties to contract is entitled to great weight, where their interpretation is a fair one. U. S. v. I. B. Miller, Inc. (C. C. A. 1936), 81 F. (2d) 8.

Preliminary negotiations.-Where the meaning of a contract is clearly expressed in the formal written instrument, the negotiations leading up to its execution are irrelevant. The written contract merged all previous negotiations, and is presumed, in law, to express the final understanding of the parties. Theodore Tiedemann Corp. v. U. S. (1933), 78 Ct. Cls. 16.

It is elementary that prior negotiations, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, form no part of a written lease unless incorporated therein. Goldstein v. U. S. (1934), 79 Ct. Cls. 477.

Trade customs.-General and universal customs applicable to the trade or business are binding upon buyer and seller unless there is a notice or contractual stipulation that the transaction is without regard to the custom. Vulcanite Cement Co. v. U. S. (1932), 74 Ct. Cls. 693.

Contract price; in general.-Contractor may recover full purchase price of canned goods sold Quartermaster Corps which complied with only standard specified. Wabash Valley Packing Co. v. U. S. (1927), 63 Ct. Cls. 344.

Contractor, required to follow plans, cannot be denied compensation because work in accord with plans does not develop intended results. Dayton-Wright Co. v. U. S. (1928), 64 Ct. Cls. 544.

Bids. Where the United Shipbuilding and Where the Government mistakenly conDry Dock Corporation, a subsidiary of United tracts for, and the contractor furnishes, cerDry Docks, Incorporated, received an award tain office equipment, the fact that it was through competitive bidding to construct two not of the particular character desired, and torpedo boat destroyers for a specific amount, which the contracting officer thought was and accompanying its bid was a copy of a being contracted for, does not release the contract between it and the United Dry Government from its obligation to accept the Docks, Incorporated, showing the relation- | equipment and pay the purchase price. Wilship between the two companies, and an liam S. Ferris v. U. S. (1933), 77 Ct. Cls. undertaking on the part of the latter com- 294. pany to furnish the shipyards, equipment and labor in case of award, it was Held, That although the bid was formally submitted by the former company only, such bid might be properly considered the joint bid of the two companies, and the award amended to make both companies jointly and severally parties to the formal contract. MSS. Op. Atty. Gen. Oct. 2, 1934.

Construction of terms; in general.—(1) It is the duty of the court to give effect, if possible, to every word or phrase of a con

Advance payments.-Where under

a supplemental contract the contractor is advanced a sum of money by the United States for working capital, repayment to be made by deductions from vouchers presented for work done, with interest on balances due, secured by an interest-bearing promissory note, and the principal contract is canceled by the United States before any deliveries are possible thereunder, the note so given is to be considered merely collateral security, and the United States upon settle