Company v. United States
Decision Date | 05 June 1916 |
Docket Number | MERRILL-RUCKGABER,No. 281,281 |
Citation | 36 S.Ct. 662,241 U.S. 387,60 L.Ed. 1058 |
Parties | COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appellant is a New York corporation. It filed a petition in the court of claims for the recovery from the United States of the sum of $4,475.90 for extra work performed in the construction of the foundation for the extension and remodeling of the United States assay office in New York. Issue was joined on the petition and the court of claims, after hearing, dismissed it.
The facts pertinent to the questions presented, collated from the findings, are as follows:
The appellant entered into a contract with the United States through the proper officers of the latter for the construction of such foundation for the sum of $79,400, in accordance with specifications and drawings prepared in the office of the supervising architect.
The specifications required bidders to visit the site and fully inform themselves of the character of the same and the conditions under which the work would have to be performed, and failure to do so, it was provided, would not relieve the successful bidder from the necessity of furnishing material or performing any labor that might be required to complete the work in accordance with the true intent and meaning of the specifications and drawings, without additional cost to the government.
The specifications, it was provided, should supplement the drawings, and specifications and drawings were to be reciprocally explanatory, and the decision of the supervising architect as to the proper interpretation of the drawings and specifications was to be final.
Under the heading 'Excavation' it was provided that
Subsequently the supervising architect sent to all parties from whom proposals had been solicited the following addendum amending the foregoing paragraph of the specifications:
'Bidders are hereby informed that the specification is to be amended as follows: Page 7, fourth paragraph, under 'Excavation,' after the clause 'and all necessary shoring, underpinning, etc., in connection therewith, must be done,' add, 'In the case of the building joining the north line of the site, the underpinning of the main rear walls must be carried to rock by a method satisfactory to the supervising architect."
A detailed contract was entered into providing that the work was to be done in accordance with the specifications and the addendum thereto and the requirements of certain specified drawings and such other detail drawings and models as might be furnished to appellant by the supervising architect.
It was further provided that changes might be made in the work and materials when required by the United States, the value of such work and materials to be determined on the basis of the contract unit of value, at prevailing market rates, such rates, in case of dispute, to be determined by the architect, whose decision should be binding on both parties, and that no claim for damages on account of such changes or for anticipated profits should be made or allowed. No claim for extra materials or work was to be made or allowed unless specifically agreed upon in writing, or directed in writing by the United States.
The assay office extension was located practically in the middle of the block bounded by Wall, Nassau, Pine, and William streets, and among the buildings surrounding the site were two on Pine street, numbered 25, 27, and 29. Number 25 was ten stories and Nos. 27 and 29 (being one building) was thirteen stories above the street, and each was one story higher at the line of the assay office extension.
Appellant submitted detail drawings...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
31 658 Contractors, Inc v. United States 8212 88
...Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695, 701—702, 704, 32 S.Ct. 352, 355—356, 56 L.Ed. 614 (1912), and Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 241 U.S. 387, 36 S.Ct. 662, 60 L.Ed. 1058 (1916). In United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.Ct. 128, 67 L.Ed. 286 (1922), the contrac......
-
State Highway Dept. v. MacDougald Const. Co.
... ... BELL, ... MacDougald ... Construction Company filed a suit against the State Highway ... Department of Georgia, to recover about $7,000, ... Marymor, 290 Pa. 299, 138 A. 824, 54 A.L.R. 1252, ... decisions by the United States Supreme Court and courts of 26 ... States are listed as subscribing to the doctrine, and ... ...
-
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Westchester County
...155 C.C.A. 126. In the last case cited, this court said: 'This court is of the opinion following the doctrine recognized in Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. U.S., supra, that by virtue the above provision the engineer had authority to determine every question as to the amount the contractors were e......
-
EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Claiborne-Reno Co.
...335; United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 218 U. S. 452, 467, 31 S. Ct. 49, 54 L. Ed. 1107; Merrill-Ruckgaber Co. v. United States, 241 U. S. 387, 392, 36 S. Ct. 662, 60 L. Ed. 1058; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Kelly (C. C. A. 8) 114 F. 268, 278; Hearin v. Standard Life Ins. Co......