The result of the case here depends upon the construction to be given to the fourth article of the contract between the parties.
Bulkley agreed to transport any quantity of such supplies between 100,000 and 10,000,000 pounds-that might be turned over to him for that purpose, from April to September, 1865. The fourth article provided—
'That in order that the said H. S. Bulkley shall be in readiness to meet the demands that shall be made upon him for transportation under this contract and agreement, due notice shall be given him or his agent of the quantity and kind of stores to be transported at any one time, at what points the stores will be ready for delivery to him, and the place of their destination, subject to such changes as shall be decided upon while in transitu, as herein provided for, that is to say,' &c.
The period of the notice before the time of performance in each case was then prescribed, being twenty-five days for 300,000 pounds, and increasing according to the increased quantity of the stores specified. On the 4th of June, 1865, an officer of the government advised Bulkley that transportation from Fort Leavenworth to the extent of 1,700,000 pounds was needed, and inquired whether, as he had been notified already to the extent of his contract, he was prepared to transport that additional quantity of freight. He assented. This enlarged so far the maximum quantity covered by the contract.
The Court of Claims found, that of the freights notified under the fourth article, the United States did not need transportation for 1,690,074 pounds, and to that extent, therefore, did not offer any to him. It was further found that Bulkley, on his part, was prepared and ready to transport all such freights, and so notified the proper officers of the United States. The court held as a conclusion of law that he could not recover the profits he would have made had the freights withheld been furnished to him, but that the United States having thrown upon him needless expense by requiring him to make ready for the transportation of freights which they did not in the end require to be transported, he was entitled to recover for the expense to which he was thus subjected. Bulkley, insisting upon profits as the measure of his damages, declined to furnish proof of the expense incurred. The Court of Claims thereupon dismissed his petition, and he has removed the case to this court for review. Here the claim for profits, as the rule of compensation, is renewed.
It is insisted that every notice was a specific agreement within the original contract on on part of the government that the freights specified should be furnished, and that the United States are liable accordingly.
We think this theory cannot be maintained, and that the Court of Claims came to the right conclusion.