| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Mullett's Administratrix v. United States, 1893, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a claim made by Mary E. Mullett as administratrix of her late husband Adolph Cluss' estate against the U.S government for unpaid architectural services rendered by Mr. Cluss in designing and supervising construction work on federal buildings between 1871-1882 under an implied contract with the Secretary of Treasury. The court ruled that no such contract existed because Congress had not authorized it and thus could not be held liable for payment. The decision hinged upon whether or not there was statutory authority allowing such contracts to be entered into without express approval from Congress; if so, then they would have been legally binding and enforceable claims against the government but if not, then they were unenforceable promises which did not give rise to any legal obligation on part of United States. The ruling clarified that while officers may enter into contracts within scope their official duties based upon existing laws authorizing them do so; however when those actions exceed what is permitted by law (as in this case), resulting agreements are void ab initio - meaning 'from beginning'. Therefore Mrs.Mullett's claim was dismissed.
In the dissenting opinion for Mullett's Administratrix v. United States, it was argued that the government should be held liable for its contractual obligations just like any private entity. The justice disagreed with the majority view that Alfred B. Mullett had voluntarily abandoned his contract as Supervising Architect of the Treasury Building and thus forfeited his right to compensation. Instead, he believed that Mullett was effectively forced out of his position due to political pressure and changes in administration policy, which amounted to a breach of contract by the government. He also disputed whether Congress had actually intended to terminate all existing contracts when it abolished Mullett’s office without making provisions for those who were still under contract at that time.