Day v. United States
| Decision Date | 26 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 43,43 |
| Citation | 245 U.S. 159,38 S.Ct. 57,62 L.Ed. 219 |
| Parties | DAY et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Benjamin Carter, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson, for appellee.
This is a suit by a contractor to recover for work and material furnished to build a bulkhead and temporary dams in order to protect a canal and locks at the cascades of the Columbia River against an extraordinary flood. The facts of the case are simple. An Act of Congress of July 13, 1892, c. 158, 27 Stat. 109, appropriated $326,250 for continuing an improvement at the cascades that had been under way for a number of years, and authorized a contract for completing it, to be paid for as subsequent further appropriations, not exceeding $1,410,250, should be made. On December 27, 1892, the claimants made a contract to 'furnish such labor and material in place,' etc., 'as may be necessary to complete' the canal and locks, at certain rates, the total of all payments not to exceed $1,745,500, the amount of the two just-mentioned sums. The contractor was required in the usual way to base his proposal upon his personal investigation and the specifications provided in reiterated words that the contractor would 'be held responsible, without expense to the Government, for the preservation and good condition of all the work now in place, and such as he may from time to time under this contract put in place, until the termination of the contract, or until the whole work is turned over to the Government in a completed condition, as required.'
The Government had built a bulkhead to protect the work, 142 feet high, which was the height of the projected work and was supposed to be high enough for floods, but in May and June, 1894, the flood in question rose three feet above it, necessitating the extra work now sued for, and leading to a change in the project so as to add six feet to the height of the protecting dam. The Government, however, had not guaranteed that the bulkhead should be sufficient or that it would protect the work while going on. On the contrary the contract contemplated, in terms, that the contractor might be prevented from commencing or completing the work by freshets or other forces or violence of the elements and provided in that event that the representative of the United States might allow such additional time as in his judgment should be just and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. T. Clark & Co. v. Miller, State Revenue Agent
... ... Courts will take judicial notice of promulgation of ... executive orders and other matters in preparation for World ... War before United States participated therein ... Courts ... will take judicial notice of fact that, before United States ... became involved in World ... ...
-
Allen v. Kraus
...of shoring and not having shored up the roof even if they had finished their work before the failure occurred. Day v. United States, 245 U.S. 159, 38 S. Ct. 57, 62 L. Ed. 219; MacArthur Bros. Co. v. United States, 285 U.S. 6, 42 S. Ct. 225, 66 L. Ed. 433; Webb-Boone Paving Co. v. State High......
-
State Ex Rel. Daniel v. Brd. River Power Co
...the terms of the contract must prevail." See cases cited in said case. As was said by the court in the ease of Day v. United States, 245 U. S. 159, 38 S. Ct. 57, 58, 62 L. Ed. 219: "One who makes a contract never can be absolutely certain that he will be able to perform it when the time com......
-
City of Columbus v. Pub. Utilities Comm'n
...Co. v. United States, 240 U. S. 156, 164, 165. The latest utterance of this court upon the subject is found in Day v. United States, 245 U. S. 159, in which it was said: ‘One who makes a contract can never be absolutely certain that he will be able to perform it when the time comes, and the......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...523 (1922) (rejecting an architect’s claim for additional compensation based on a literal reading of the contract); Day v. United States, 245 U.S. 159 (1917) (upholding the denial of a contractor’s claim for extra compensation); White v. United States, 241 U.S. 149 (1916) (scope of work); U......
-
Federal environmental remediation contractual and insurance-based risk allocation schemes: are they getting the job done?
...(77) FAR 16.101(b). (78) See ITT Arctic Servs., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.2d 680, 691 (Ct. C1. 1975). (79) See Day v. United States, 245 U.S. 159 (1917); Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, 211 U.S. 188 (1908). (80) See FAR 16.103; FAR 16.104. (81) See id (82) FAR 16.102 (a). (83) FAR 1......