United States v. California Bridge & Construction Co.

Citations

• 53 Ct. Cl. 620
• 50 Ct. Cl. 40

Syllabus

<p>This suit grows out of a contract made to erect a sawmill, boiler house, and steel chimney at the Mare Island Navy Yard, San Francisco, on the 21st day of December, 1898. The contract did not fix the exact location of the structures to be erected, but simply provided for their construction, and the definite location was left to the officers of the navy yard in charge of the work to recommend a site to the department officials, which was not approved. Subsequently another site recommended was approved, and on March 1, 1899, plaintiff was so advised. In May following an officer of the plaintiff inspected said site and protested against being required to erect the structures there without additional compensation. In June following the Navy Department refused to allow the plaintiff’s said claims for additional compensation, and the plaintiff thereupon refused to proceed with the work. Later plaintiff was allowed six months’ additional time to complete the work, but on March 16, 1900, the plaintiff declined to proceed; and on April 26 a supplemental contract was prepared and presented to the plaintiff, which it also declined to execute; and on January 2, 1901, the defendants declared the contract null and void, with the result that this suit was instituted to recover from the United States alleged losses.</p> <p>The court below decides:</p> <p>The general rule is, where an action is brought in a court of competent jurisdiction and judgment rendered thereon, it is conclusive in a subsequent action between the same parties or their privies upon the same subject matter in the same court or another court of concurrent jurisdiction.</p> <p>When it is said that a judgment binds parties and privies, the reference is, generally speaking, to privies in law, and not to a privity by contract or deed.</p> <p>The rule is elementary that all prior negotiations are merged in the written contract, and that such contract is presumed in law to express the final understanding of the par