Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/805

 BOOKWALTER V. OLABK. 793 �the bil], after the prayer for relief, "Charles Devens, Attorney Gen- eral, by riiilip Teare, United States Attorney for the district of Cal- iforaia.' I think it appears from the record that the attorney gen- erai brirjgs or authorizes the filiug of the bill, has control, and isthe rcsponsible manager of the case, within the principle stated in U, S. V. Thruckiuorton, 98 U. S. 70. So, also, it appears to me that the letter of the attorney general set out in the answer is full authority for the proceeding. But this bill was signed upon authority of aiiother letter of the attorney general expressly written for the pur- pose. �This suit is, doubtless, prosecuted at the instigation of the Black Diamond Coal Company, and while the company, after working and exhausting the coal for years without availing itself of the right to purchase the land at a comparatively small sum, as it might and honestly should have donc, and is, therefore, entitled to little sym- pathy should the defendants gain the land; yet the United States has seen fit to intervene to vacate the proceedings, as it had a right to do, and there must be a decree for the complainant annulling the statc selection, the listing, and the patent issued thereon, and it is so ordered. ���BooKWALTEE and others v. Clabk and others. (Circuit Gourt, W. D. Wiseormn, January 21, 1882.) �1. CONTRACT— MeASDRE OF DAMAGES FOK BliEACH OF. �Defendants ordered plaintiffs to manufacture a certain water-wheel, to be shipped to them by a certain date, agreeing to pay for the same in monoy and notes. Plaintiffs fulfilled their contract and tendered delivery, but defendants refused to receive the goods or pay for them, they having had the opportunity to iijKpcct them, and^making no point that the goods were not perfect. Held, thai plaintiffs are entitled to recover, as their tnie measure of damages for non- fulfilment, the contract priee of the article, though no title had passed. �In Chancery. �BuNN, D. J. This case was tried before the court without a jury, a jury having been waived by the consent of parties in open court. There is no dispute about the facts. On December 17, 1880, defend- ants made an order in writing upon the plaintiffs, signed by them, which was delivered to and accepted by the plaintiffs, as follows : ��� �