with whom concurred the CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting:

The Court of Claims having found-that the claim in this case was never submitted to the commission appointed by the direction of the President to examine such claims, I am unable to concur in the conclusion of the court that the ease is controlled by the decision of the court in the case of United States v. Adams, in 7th Wallace, and for the reason that the claim was never so presented.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim of the appellees for the sum of $478,119.62 was examined by the special commission appointed by the President. It allowed the sum of $315,008.15 on the demand, and rejected the remainder of $163,111.47. The claimants accepted the sum so allowed by the commission, gave re*241ceipts in full of the accounts included in the demand, and have brought this suit to recover the amount rejected by the commission.

These facts are undisputed, and part of the findings of the Court of Claims in thecase. If they stood alone they would bring i't within the principles laid down by this court in the' case of the United States against Adams. That case was twice argued before us and affirmed by a full bench, and as we are satisfied with the principles on which it was decided they must govern us iu passing on subsequent cases, so far as they fall within its rulings.

But the claimants contend that other facts found by. the. Court of Claims take this case out of the propositions laid down for the government of that case, and entitle them to an affirmance of the judgment rendered in their favor by the Court of Claims. An important difference between the-two is said to exist in the fact that Adams voluntarily submitted his claim to- the commission wre have mentioned, and the claimants in this case did not. And it is insisted that this submission constituted an important, if not a controlling-element iu the decision of the Adams case.

The court in discussing the question of the conclusiveness of a receipt which Adams had given in order to obtain possession of his vouchers, and which he asserted to have been obtained by duress, says: “ In the view we- have, taken of the case, the giving of the receipt is of no legal importance. The bar to any further legal demand against government does not rest upon this acquittance, but upon the voluntary submission of.the claims to the board;.the hearing and final decision thereon.fthe receipt of the vouchers containing, the .sum or account found due to the claimant, and the-acceptance of the payment of that amount under the act of Congress providing therefor.”

Counsel for the claimants construing the phrase “voluntary submission,” here used, to mean such a submission as would constitute the commissioners-a board of arbitrators, or at all events, such a submission as would render their decision legally conclusive, deny that the parties in the present *242case ever made such a submission. As much importance, seems to have been given to this question by both parties, an order was obtained from this court on motion of the appellants directing the Court of Claims to make a more specific finding of facts on that subject. Such a supplementary finding is in the present record, and that court says, among other things, that the claims of the claimants were never submitted to said commission. But they further say in this supplementary finding, that the claimants had, in some manner not shown, to the court, presented or given notice of their claim against the United States to the said commission, but that they had not presented their original vouchers, or any proofs, to the said commission. They also find that the claimants appeared before said commission with witnesses, but what they testified to is not shown.

• Taking these findings together, it seems to us that the Court of Claims meant to say that the cUiimants did not submit their claims to the commission as arbitrators, or with intent that their decision should be conclusive, but that they did. present, their claims and did appear to support them with witnesses. This view of their meaning is confirmed by reference to their original finding, in which it is said that “ claimants on their part never submitted their vouchers to the arbitration or decision of tne commission.” No doubt these were the facts of the case; and as to this part of it they come fairly within the decision of the court in Adams’s case.

. In the opinion of the court then delivered, it is held that .this board had no authority to compel parties to submit theii claims to it, and that its decisions were not conclusive when they did submit them. The court, referring to the various ways open to claimants to obtain satisfaction of their demands, and after speaking of an application, to Congress, a suit in the Court of Claims, and a submission to this special commission, adds: “This tribunal afforded an additional advantage over others, namely, that if, after the hearing and adjustment of the claims, the claimants were not satisfied, they were free to dissent and look for redress to the only *243legal tribunals provided in such cases.” And to the application of Adams to remaud the case to the court below, founded on the allegátion that the Court of Claims had made a mistake in finding that he had submitted his claim to the board, this court responds :* Though it is true that the appellee did not present his claim to the board, cs stated • in the finding in the record on appeal, it cannot, in view of the original record of the evidence before the Court of Claims, be denied that he made himself a party to the proceedings and. took the benefit of the adjustment of his-,accounts by them, which brings the case within the principle decided in 7th Wallace.”

But.though the claimants might have refused to abide by the decision of the board and sought relief from the Court of Claims or from Congress, they did not do so.

We lay out of view in this case, as in the Adams case, the. receipts which they gave, under protest, in order to regain possession of their vouchers. But we cannot disregard the finding of the Court of Claims that,-after Co'ngress had appropriated money to pay the sums found due by the commissioners, the claimants received the-amount so allowed, and signed upon each voucher a receipt whereby they acknowledged having received said reduced amount “in full of the above account.” And that at the time of receiving this payment they made no formal objection or protest, but were required to and did sign the receipt above described.

Although it is found by the court that these receipts were not under seal and were without consideration, the latter statement must have some meaning not-apparent to us, in view-of the other faet found also,.that over $Sl5,000 was paid to the claimants on those accounts at the timfe they, gave the receipts.

To avoid the legal effect of these facts it is argued that not only in giving the receipts above mentioned, but also in accepting the money for which they were given, the com-' plainants acted under duress.

*244We can hardly conceive of a definition of duress that •would bring this case within its terms. Authorities are cited to show that where, under peculiar circumstances, property is withheld from the owner and he is forced to pay some unjust demand to obtain possession of it, he can after-wards maintain a suit for the money so paid. But no case cau be found, we apprehend, where a party who, without force or intimidation-and with a full knowledge of all the facts of the case, accepts on account of an unliquidated and . controverted demand, a sum less than what he claims and believes to be due him, and agrees to accept that sum in full satisfaction, has been permitted to avoid his act on the ground that this is duress. If the principle contended for here be sound, no party cau safely pay by way of compromise any sum less than what is claimed of him, for the compromise will be void as obtained by duress. The common and generally praiseworthy procedure by which business men every day sacrifice part of claims which they believe to be just to secure payment of the remainder would always be duress, and the compromise void.

But it is argued that the government should be held to- a difierent rule than that which applies to private parties. -It is said that the amount in dispute here was so large that the claimants were compelled to accept what was offered, to avoid bankruptcy.

No fact found by the Court of Claims', or otherwise presented by the record, justifies us in supposing that the claimants were threatened with insolvency, and the circumstance that the claim which was the subject of the compromise was a very large one can hardly be accepted in a court of law or equity as. a reason for-setting it aside. If indeed there was any such pressing motive in the minds of the claimants arising out of the condition of their private affairs as influenced them strongly to accept the offer of the government, it cannot, in the absence of fraud or constraint on its part, invalidate the settlement.

It seems to us that this case, under the ordinary principles . of law applicable to its class, is free from embarrassment.

*245If there had been no reference to, and no finding by, the commission, it would still remain true, that here was a claim, the justice of which had been denied and the amount that was due on it had been in dispute for nearly two years. The government finally says to the claimants: “ We will pay you a certain' sum on this disputed claim provided, you will take it in full satisfaction of the whole;” when, without intimidation, without fraud or concealment on the part of the government/ without protest or objection on their part, the claimants accept the money offered and sign a receipt acknowledging it to be in full of the whole claim. Is not this a legal and binding compromise of the disputed demand? Is it not a voluntary adjustment of the matter in dispute between the parties? And we think that it is a strong additional argument in favor of the validity of this settlement, when.it is called in question in court, that the sum so agreed upon was found to be a balance justly due on the claim by á commission of three capable and honest men, appointed by the government to ascertain what was due, and that before this commission the other party presented his claim* and produced his witnesses, and was allowed a full and fair hearing to any extent that he desired.

In this view of the case it is of no avail to urge that the Court of Claims has found that the whole claim was just and ought to be paid. After the compromise that question was no longer open to inquiry. It is of the very essence of such adjustments of disputed rights that the contest shall be closed; and whatever consideration might be given the finding of the Court of Claims on that subject in another department of the government, this department, which sits to administer the law, must be governed by its recognized principles.

Judgment reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Claims, with directions to render judgment

In favor of the United States.