Reading Steel Casting Co v. United States

• Citation: 45 S.Ct. 469,268 U.S. 186,69 L.Ed. 907,89 L.Ed. 907
• Decision Date: 27 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 233,233
• Parties: READING STEEL CASTING CO. v. UNITED STATES
• Court: United States Supreme Court

268 U.S. 186

45 S.Ct. 469

69 L.Ed. 907

89 L.Ed. 907

READING STEEL CASTING CO.

v UNITED STATES.

No. 233.

Argued Jan. 26, 1925.

Decided April 27, 1925.

Mr. Paul C. Wagner, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., for the United States.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought under section 24, par. 20, of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 991), to recover $7,581.95, alleged to be due upon a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The court gave judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiff took the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error, but it should have been brought to this court. J. Homer Fritch, Inc., v. United States, 248 U. S. 458, 39 S. Ct. 158, 63 L. Ed. 359; Campbell v. United States, 266 U. S. 368, 45 S. Ct. 115. The case was transferred to this court under section 238a, Judicial Code (Act Sept. 14, 1922, c. 305, 42 Stat. 837 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a]) (C. C. A. Pa.) 293 F. 386.

The facts admitted include the following: September 4, 1918, plaintiff made a contract with the post quartermaster, United States Marine Corps, Quantico, Va., acting under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy for and in behalf of the United States. By it, plaintiff agreed to furnish two flywheels according to certain drawings, each to be cast in halves 'in the rough.' Delivery was to be made by September 28, 1918, at Reading, Pa., for shipment to the De La Vergne Machine Company, New York City. The contract contained a provision that upon delivery, and as a condition precedent to their acceptance, the castings should be inspected and approved by defendant, and that any article not so approved would be rejected, and should be removed by plaintiff immediately after receipt of notification of such rejection. The court found facts as follows:

'The plaintiff failed to perform its contract in that the castings were defective because of the presence of checks. These defects could have been remedied by welding, and the castings thus made to conform to contract. The extent of the cracks and the consequent required welding could not be determined until after the castings had been machined. Plaintiff sent the castings to the company which was to do the machining, and plaintiff was given the privilege of welding the cracks when disclosed by the machining. This welding was, however, not done, nor the castings made as required by the contract. The smaller casting which was the first casting supplied was inspected and rejected within a reasonable time. After partial welding it was again inspected and rejected within a reasonable time. The large casting was not inspected until after a reasonable time. This wheel was shipped December 27, 1918, and reached its destination before February 7, 1919. It had not been inspected on December 6, 1919, and notice of inspection and rejection was not given until October 26, 1920, after suit brought.'

In its brief, defendant contends that the plaintiff was bound by the contract to weld checks disclosed by machining, and the plaintiff so construes the contract. The facts admitted and the concessions made by the parties may...