Clark v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
| Parties | CLARK v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Claims.
The case was thus: Clark entered into a contract with the United States to furnish all the material and make 221,000 cubic yards of embankment at the Navy Yard at Memphis, Tennessee; the embankment to be made in such manner and places as should be directed by the engineer, and finished on or before the 15th of July, 1847. The United States engaged, that for the materials and embankment made, &c., according to the contract, there should be paid, on account of all bills presented for the aforesaid materials and work delivered and executed, 'eighteen cents for every cubic yard.' Ten per cent. was to be withheld from the amount of all payments as collateral security, and a bond given to secure performance.
Clark having brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover a balance which he asserted to be due on this contract, that court found——
'1. That he built 128,913.55 yards of the embankment, for which he had been paid.
'2. That the system of measurements pursued by the officers of the United States, and by which the said quantity of yards was computed, consisted in measuring from a fixed base monthly, and that the claimant at the time objected to the system, contending that he should be paid for the quantity of earth actually deposited by him on the embankment.
'3. That there was a waste and shrinkage of the embankment while building, and a natural settling of the batture on which the embankment was built, and that the loss occasioned thereby necessarily was borne by the claimant under the system of measurements adopted.
'4. That this system was the one customarily used on the public works of the government, and that there was no competent evidence offered to show a contrary custom.
And the court decided:
'That the contract was entire and not severable, and that by the terms thereof the claimant could only recover for the embankment completed and not for the quantity of earth deposited by him therein, and that as a necessary and legal consequence thereof all loss by settling, shrinkage, and the action of the currents of the river, was to be borne by the claimant and not by the United States.
'That the claimant was not entitled to recover for the interference of the defendants or their officers subsequent to the 15th July, 1847, the time when the work under his said contract was to have been completed by the terms of his agreement.'
From this deciso n Clark appealed.
Messrs. Norton and Weed, Solicitor and Assistant Solicitor for the Court of Claims, in support of the decision, contended, by brief filed, that the claimant having contracted to furnish materials, as well as to do the work, all loss, though arising from inevitable accident, was to be borne by him: that it was a case for the maxim, res perit domino. They contended also that the contract was entire, and that the appellant having been bound to complete his work by July 15th, and the United States having had a right to use the place from that day, he could recover nothing unless he showed that the day, he could recover nothing unless he showed that the failure to complete was caused by the United States.
Mr. Hughes, who filed a brief for Mr. McCalla, contra.
1. Among the facts found by the court it is stated that 'the officers of government interfered with claima...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George A. Fuller Co. v. United States
...expressly exempting it from liability therefor. Shortly after this court was established, the Supreme Court so held in Clark v. United States, 6 Wall. 543, 18 L.Ed. 916. It also so held in United States v. Speed, supra; and in United States v. Smith, supra; and in United States v. Mueller, ......
-
Shedd-Bartush Foods of Ill. v. Commodity Credit Corp.
...with the order. As pointed out by defendant, United States v. Barlow, 184 U.S. 123, 22 S.Ct. 468, 46 L.Ed. 463; Clark v. United States, 6 Wall. 543, 73 U.S. 543, 18 L.Ed. 916, and George A. Fuller v. United States, 69 F.Supp. 409, 108 Ct.Cl. 70, are inapplicable since in those cases the Gov......
-
Wilson v. Salt Lake City
... ... [52 ... Utah 514] Many of the states have express statutory ... provisions precluding the recovery for extra labor unless the ... 4, section 1946, ... p. 418; Salt Lake City v. Smith, 104 F. 457, 43 C ... C. A. 637; United States v. Barlow, 184 U.S. 123, 22 ... S.Ct. 468, 46 L.Ed. 463; Clark v. United States, 6 ... ...
-
United States v. George A. Fuller Co.
...clearly, the government, and not defendant, must bear such loss. This seems the wellsettled rule. See Clark v. United States, 73 U. S. (6 Wall.) 543, 18 L. Ed. 916, and cases cited; United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214, 24 L. Ed. Viewed in this light, and laying aside for the present the qu......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...CONTEXT 13–25 (2020). 14. Mayor of Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 37 U.S. 91 (1838). 15. Winder v. Caldwell, 55 U.S. 434 (1852). 16. 73 U.S. 543 (1867). The case also addressed the contractor’s claims concerning the proper application of the contract’s formula for calculating the quant......