United States v. Smith
Citations
- 256 U.S. 11
- 41 S. Ct. 413
- 65 L. Ed. 808
- 1921 U.S. LEXIS 1687
Syllabus
<p>1. In the performance of a contract with the United States for the excavation of a channel to specified depths, under attached speeifica- ■ tions describing the materials to be removed as clay, sand, gravel, and boulders in unknown proportions, deposits consisting largely of limestone were ■ encountered, the removal of which entailed an expense per cubic yard much exceeding the price fixed by the contract for the materials therein specified. The engineer officer in charge of the work arbitrarily classified these deposits with, the materials described by the specifications; ignored the protest of the contractors and their request that a new price be fixed therefor; and required them to proceed, under threats that, otherwise, they would be declared in default and the work taken from them and completed and the cost recouped from the retained percentages of their pay already earned and through legal proceedings against themselves and their sureties. Held, that clauses in the contract making decisions of the officer as to quantity and quality of work final, requiring the contractors to observe his instructions and denying any claim for modification, of the work not agreed to, .or expressly required, in writing, — were inapplicable, and that the contractors were entitled to recover from the United States the cost of excavating the material not covered by the contract. P. 15.</p> <p>2. Contractors with the United States held entitled to recover the amount of a loss due to delays of the engineer in charge in locating the places where they should work. P. 17.</p> <p>54 Ct. Clms. 119, affirmed.</p>
Judges: McKenna, Day, McReynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. Blair Ex Rel. Roanoke Marble & Granite Co.Supreme Court· 1944-05-08· cited 224×
- Flippin Materials Co. v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1963-01-11· cited 102×
- Dale Construction Co. v. United States, Seaboard Surety Co.Court of Claims· 1964-12-11· cited 85×
- Hartsville Oil Mill v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1926-04-12· cited 81×
- Bignold v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court· 1965-03-04· cited 64×
- Benjamin Foster Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1945-05-07· cited 45×
- State Highway Department v. MacDougald Construction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia· 1939-10-12· cited 41×
- Robinson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1923-04-09· cited 40×
- United States v. JohnsonNinth Circuit· 1946-02-15· cited 37×
- MacArthur Brothers Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1922-02-27· cited 35×
- S & M Constructors, Inc. v. City of ColumbusOhio Supreme Court· 1982-05-19· cited 30×
- M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Construction, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1965-03-08· cited 27×
- McCree & Company v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1958-08-01· cited 23×
- Pitt Const. Co. v. City of Alliance, OhioSixth Circuit· 1926-04-09· cited 16×
- 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×
- Clark v. City of Humansville, MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals· 1961-07-06· cited 15×
- Elkan v. Sebastian Bridge Dist.Eighth Circuit· 1923-06-06· cited 15×
- United States v. Rich Co., Inc.Eighth Circuit· 1971-03-30· cited 12×
- Davis v. Commissioners of SewerageW.D. Kentucky· 1936-02-20· cited 11×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.