Graham & the Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. United States

Citations

• 231 U.S. 474
• 34 S. Ct. 148
• 58 L. Ed. 319
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2542

Syllabus

<p>Where the contractor refuses t.o go on with the work there is no question of revision of judgment of an officer annulling the contract, and a right of action accrues' to the Government without need of any useless Ceremony of approval by the superior officer or board. United States v. McMullen, 222 U. S. 460, distinguished.</p> <p>In this case, as the bond in terms contemplated an extension of time and the contract provided for modifications, the surety was not discharged by waiver of time limit or for modifications without its express consent.</p> <p>Under a contract that the Government would furnish the contractor with granite blocks free on board cars at the quarry, he to transport them, held that the contractor was to furnish the cars and was responsible for delay in that respect.</p> <p>In Federal courts the judge and jury are assumed to be competent to play their respective parts; and held that the charge to the jury in this case as to the'meaning of the phrase “net dimension blocks” was adequate and fair.</p> <p>Tins court will not upset a verdict upon the speculation that the jury did not do their duty and follow the instructions of the court; the fact that the attention of the jury was. called by counsel for the Government to the statement on the letter-head of the surety company defendant that its capital was $1,000,000, held not to have been prejudicial.</p> <p>An instruction that the Government was entitled to recover, in case of breach found, an amount, not exceeding the penalty of the bond, equal to the difference between the reasonable and necessary cost to it for transporting, cutting and delivering the granite mentioned in the case and the amount specified in- the contract-, held to have referred simply to the granite actually in controversy; and there being evidence in the case to warrant the finding, and as the measure followed the contract, a verdict for the amount was correct.</p>