Simpson v. United States
Citations
- 172 U.S. 372
- 19 S. Ct. 222
- 43 L. Ed. 482
- 1899 U.S. LEXIS 1382
Syllabus
<p>The plaintiffs contracted with the United States to construct a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard according to plans and specifications, and to be built upon a site that was available. No provision was made in regard to quicksands should they come upon such in making the foundations. The main features of the contract are stated in detail in the statement of the case below. In executing the contract the contractors came upon shifting quicksands, by reason of which the work was made more difficult, and was much increased; and being unable to complete the work within the time specified in the contract, they asked for an extension, which was granted. On completion a settlement was had, all the money remaining due under the contract, and some that was due for extra work, was paid. It was not until about three years later that the claim for compensation for the extra labor and materials made necessary by the quicksand was made; and, when it was refused, this action to recover it was brought in the Court of Claims, and there decided adversely to the claimants. Held, That the contract imposed upon the contractors the obligation to construct the dock according to the specifications within a designated time, for an agreed price, upon a site to be selected by the United States, and contained no statement, or agreement or even intimation that any warranty, express or implied, in favor of the contractor was entered into by the United States concerning the character of the underlying soil; and that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.</p>
Judges: White, After Making the Foregoing Statement
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hollerbach v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-04-06· cited 260×
- Jackson v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1924-07-01· cited 63×
- United States v. Marce BellSecond Circuit· 1975-10-06· cited 60×
- United States v. JohnsonNinth Circuit· 1946-02-15· cited 37×
- Newcomb v. SchaefflerSupreme Court of Colorado· 1955-01-24· cited 35×
- Morse v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1927-06-29· cited 32×
- McCree & Company v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1958-08-01· cited 23×
- Pinkerton and Laws Co., Inc. v. Roadway Exp., Inc.N.D. Georgia· 1986-08-28· cited 20×
- Allied Structural Steel Co. v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals· 1970-12-29· cited 19×
- United Steed Co. v. CaseySixth Circuit· 1920-02-13· cited 19×
- Condon-Cunningham, Inc. v. DayCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court· 1969-12-15· cited 16×
- C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1939-05-01· cited 16×
- Elkan v. Sebastian Bridge Dist.Eighth Circuit· 1923-06-06· cited 15×
- Bumby & Stimpson, Inc. v. Peninsula Utilities Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1964-12-08· cited 14×
- G. T. Fogle & Co. v. United StatesFourth Circuit· 1943-04-20· cited 13×
- Southgate v. Sanford & Brooks Co.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1927-03-17· cited 12×
- Thomas Kelly & Sons, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-04-29· cited 11×
- Davis v. Commissioners of SewerageW.D. Kentucky· 1936-02-20· cited 11×
- Ramon v. ShortMontana Supreme Court· 2020-03-25· cited 10×
- Sole v. Grand Jurors of NJ for Co. of Passaic & BergenD. New Jersey· 1975-05-05· cited 9×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.