A-5621, OCTOBER 30, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 417

A-5621: Oct 30, 1924

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PURCHASES - EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY EVIDENCE THAT MEAT SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO AND RECEIPTED FOR BY AN ENLISTED MAN OF THE ARMY DULY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AND RECEIPT THEREFOR ENTITLES THE VENDOR TO PAYMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND RETURNED OR DESTROYED. DISALLOWING ITS CLAIM FOR $141.96 FOR 507 POUNDS OF LAMB ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED APRIL 4. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS BASED UPON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT AT THE CAMP. A BOARD WAS CONVENED TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF THE RECEIPT OF THE MEAT IN QUESTION AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIM BE ALLOWED. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MIKE HAPSTAK ACTUALLY RECEIPTED FOR THE MEAT IN QUESTION.

A-5621, OCTOBER 30, 1924, 4 COMP. GEN. 417

PURCHASES - EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY EVIDENCE THAT MEAT SOLD TO THE GOVERNMENT WAS DELIVERED TO AND RECEIPTED FOR BY AN ENLISTED MAN OF THE ARMY DULY AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE AND RECEIPT THEREFOR ENTITLES THE VENDOR TO PAYMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REJECTED AND RETURNED OR DESTROYED.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, OCTOBER 30, 1924:

WILSON-MARTIN CO. APPLIED SEPTEMBER 17, 1924, FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT 041574, AUGUST 12, 1924, DISALLOWING ITS CLAIM FOR $141.96 FOR 507 POUNDS OF LAMB ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED APRIL 4, 1922, TO CAMP DIX, N.J. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS BASED UPON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT AT THE CAMP. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THE COMPANY SUBMITTED A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF AN AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS CO. DELIVERY RECEIPT SIGNED "Q.M.C.DET. MIKE HAPSTAK" AND DATED APRIL 4, 1922, COVERING 507 POUNDS OF MEAT.

THE RECORDS OF MEAT RECEIPTS AT CAMP DIX FAIL TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF THIS PARTICULAR SHIPMENT, AND MIKE HAPSTAK STATES THAT HE HAS NO "REMEMBRANCE" OF HAVING SIGNED FOR SUCH SHIPMENT, BUT A COMPARISON OF HIS SIGNATURE TO THE STATEMENT WITH THAT SIGNED TO THE RECEIPT DISCLOSES THE TWO TO BE IDENTICAL.

A BOARD WAS CONVENED TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF THE RECEIPT OF THE MEAT IN QUESTION AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE CLAIM BE ALLOWED. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MIKE HAPSTAK ACTUALLY RECEIPTED FOR THE MEAT IN QUESTION, BUT THERE IS A TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE OF WHAT BECAME OF THE MEAT AFTER HE RECEIPTED THEREFOR. HOWEVER, HAVING BEEN DELIVERED BY, OR IN BEHALF OF, THE COMPANY TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SAME AND RECEIPT THEREFOR, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MEAT WAS REJECTED AND RETURNED TO THE COMPANY, OR DESTROYED, IT MUST BE PRESUMED, SO FAR AS THE RIGHTS OF THE VENDOR ARE CONCERNED, THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE MEAT IN QUESTION. THE VENDOR IS ACCORDINGLY ENTITLED TO PAYMENT THEREFOR.