Harvey v. United States

Decision Date01 October 1881
Citation26 L.Ed. 1206,105 U.S. 671
PartiesHARVEY v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Enoch Totten for the appellants.

The Solicitor-General, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Simons, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 12th of May, 1869, General Rodman, in command of the United States Arsenal at Rock Island, Illinois, caused to be published the following advertisement, in pursuance of law:——

'PROPOSALS FOR BRIDGE MASONRY.

'Sealed proposals will be ree ived at this arsenal up to 10 o'clock A. M. on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1869, for the construction of the piers and abutments of the railroad and wagon-road bridge to be built to connect the island of Rock Island with the city of Davenport. It is proposed to build, say, five common piers, one draw-pier, and two abutments. The stone and cement required for the work will be furnished on railroad cars, on arsenal switch, near the island end of the proposed bridge, and the sand required for the cement will be furnished by the United States at or near the same point. All the masonry must be of the best quality of bridge masonry, the stones in each course must be well banded, and each course well secured by dowels to the course below under cut-water, and at lower end of piers, and the foundation courses must be fairly bedded and well secured to the rock-bed of the river, the work as it progresses being subject to the inspection and approval of the commanding officer of the arsenal, or such other officer or person as may be designated by proper authority. Detailed information with regard to the general form and dimensions of the piers and abutments, and a profile of bed of river, can be obtained by personal application at the arsenal. The total amount of masonry is estimated at about 10,000 cubic yards. All the piers and abutments will be required to be completed prior to the first day of December, 1869. Parties making bids will state the price per cubic yard of solid masonry at which they are willing to complete the work, the United States furnishing the stone, cement, and sand, as above stipulated, and nothing more. They will also make a bid stating separately the price per cubic yard of solid masonry at which they will undertake to build the piers and abutments, the United States furnishing the stone, cement, and sand, as above, and the price at which they will agree to put in the necessary coffer-dams with their protections. Proposals will be indorsed 'Proposals for Bridge Masonry,' and addressed to the undersigned. The United States reserves the right to reject any bid not deemed satisfactory.

'T. J. RODMAN,

'Lt. Col. and Bvt. Brig. Gen. U. S. A., Commanding.'

The appellants put in the following proposal:——

'ROCK ISLAND, May 25th, 1869.

'We propose to build the masonry of piers and abutments of the Rock Island bridge, as per annexed advertisement:——

Small piers and abutments, per yard. $11 00

Draw-pier, per yard............. 13 00

'HARVEY & LIVESEY,

'Madison, Wisconsin.'

The only other proposal put in was one by Reynolds, Saulpaugh, & Co., as follows:——

'ROCK ISLAND, ILL., May 25th, 1869.

'Brig.-Gen'l T. J. RODMAN, Com'd'g Rock Island Arsenal.

'SIR,—We respectfully propose to build your piers and abutments for the rail and wagon road bridge between the island of Rock Island and the city of Davenport, in accordance with the terms of your advertisement of May 12, 1869, at prices as follows:

'Solid masonry at $19.10 per cubic yard in the work complete, the United States furnishing the stone, cement, and sand, as stipulated, and nothing more. This price is based on 10,000 cubic yards of masonry in the work when completed. Or, as per your second plan, at prices as follows:——

'Solid masonry at $12.70 per cubic yard in the work complete, the United States furnishing the stone, cement, and sand, as above, and build the coffer-dams at prices as follows:——

For pier No. 1, dam............ 18 feet high. $7,800

For pier No. 2, dam............ 15 feet high. 34,900

For pier No. 3, dam............ 13 feet high. 6,000

For pier No. 4,5,& 6,.......... 12 feet high. 15,000

---------

$63,700

'The above prices for dams include the protections to the same, complete.

'Respectfully yours,

'REYNOLDS, SAULPAUGH, & CO.'

The bid of the appellants was accepted. A contract was then drawn by a clerk of General Rodman's. A rough draft of it was submitted to the appellants, and, on their returning it as satisfactory, the engrossed copies were prepared fr signature, and the contracts were executed and interchanged, bearing date June 1, 1869. The following are the provisions of the contract which are material to this case: 'The parties of the first part do hereby contract and engage with the said United States to construct the piers and abutments for the new rail and wagon bridge, to be built to connect the island of Rock Island with the city of Davenport, in accordance with such plans and specifications as may be fixed by proper authority acting for the United States; the United States to furnish stone, cement, sand, and all necessary templets required for the work, and nothing more; the stone and cement to be delivered in cars at the government switch on the island, near the site of the work. . . . The character of the work to be daily inspected as it progresses by such officer or other person as the commanding officer of the Rock Island arsenal or other authority appointed by the United States, may designate; such inspector to have full authority to give any directions with regard to the character or manner of conducting the work. The whole work to be completed prior to the first day of December next, provided that the stone shall be delivered at the rate of 2,000 cubic yards per month; and, in case of any failure on the part of the United States to deliver this amount of stone, then the work to be completed as soon after the first day of December next as practicable. . . . Payment in such funds as the Treasury Department may provide, at the rate of thirteen (13) dollars per cubic yard for all masonry in the draw-pier, and at the rate of eleven (11) dollars per cubic yard for all other masonry. . . . It is further stipulated and agreed, that if any default shall be made by the parties of the first part in the performance of their work specified in this contract, of the quality and at the times and places therein provided, that then, in that case, the United States shall have the right to take entire and exclusive charge of the work, and to complete it in accordance with the conditions prescribed by this contract, charging us with the entire cost of completing it, and crediting us with the amount per cubic yard heretofore stipulated to be paid us for the completing of the work.'

On the 14th of December, 1870, the appellants filed a petition in the Court of Claims praying a judgment against the United States for $200,400. The petition set forth that the contract was one for doing the masonry work in and about the construction of the piers and abutments; that proposals were invited for said work, and also separate proposals for putting in the necessary coffer-dams and their protections, but the petitioners bid only for said masonry work in the construction of said piers and abutments; and that their bid, being the lowest one for said masonry work, was accepted, and the contract was awarded thereon. The petition made the following claims, by items, against the United States: 1. For damages incurred by reason of the unreasonable delay caused by defendants from June 7, 1869, to Sept. 4, 1869, $25,000; 2. For putting in coffer-dams and protections, for pumping the water therefrom, and for preparing the beds for the piers and abutments, $75,000; 3. For loss of profits incurred by the unlawful reduction of the dimensions of the piers and abutments, $33,600; 4. For increase in the cost of the work, by having been compelled to do it in cold weather, $15,000; 5. For constructing 4,400 cubic years of masonry, at, say, $12 per yard, $52,800; 6. For loss caused by neglect of defendants to furnish materials and locate piers and abutments, whereby the plaintiffs, their workmen and tools, were kept idle, $15,000; 7. For loss of machinery, vessels, and tools, caused by the ejectment of the plaintiffs from the work, $25,000; 8. For dressing coping and corners of abutments, and dressing noses of piers under water, not required by contract, $5,000. This made a total of $246,400, on which $46,000 was credited as paid, leaving a balance of $200,400. The petitionc ontained allegations bearing upon each one of the eight items claimed, but it is not necessary here to refer to any but those in respect to items 2 and 3, which allegations were as follows: 'That about the thirteenth day of September, 1869, the United States having furnished materials sufficient to commence the construction of said piers and abutments, the petitioners requested the agent of the defendants to put in, or cause to be put in, the necessary coffer-dams and to pump the water therefrom, and prepare beds for said piers and abutments, to enable petitioners to proceed with the performance of their contract. But the United States refused to put in such coffer-dams and pump the water therefrom, and refused to prepare said beds, pretending that petitioners were bound, under said contract, to put in said coffer-dams. the petitioners thereupon protested against such wrongful construction of said contract, but, at the special request of the defendants, and relying upon the good faith of the United States, they undertook to and did put in the necessary coffer-dams and protections, and pump the water therefrom, and did prepare the beds for said piers and abutments. That the labor and materials expended in putting in said coffer-dams and protections, and pumping water and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • City of Merrill v. Wenzel Bros., Inc.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 1, 1979
    ...Supreme Court cases. United States v. Purcell Envelope Co., 249 U.S. 313, 39 S.Ct. 300, 63 L.Ed. 620 (1919); Harvey v. United States, 105 U.S. 671, 26 L.Ed. 1206 (1881), and Garfielde v. United States, 30 Otto 242, 93 U.S. 242, 23 L.Ed. 779 The Arnold holding was subsequently considered in ......
  • Five Star Airport Alliance, Inc. v. Milwaukee Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • May 8, 2013
    ...formal contract was to be executed. Id. (citing Garfielde v. United States, 93 U.S. 242, 23 L.Ed. 779 (1876); Harvey v. United States, 105 U.S. (15 Otto) 671, 26 L.Ed. 1206 (1881); United States v. Purcell Envelope Co., 249 U.S. 313, 39 S.Ct. 300, 63 L.Ed. 620 (1919)). L.G. Arnold held that......
  • Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 98-80C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • April 8, 1981
    ...respecting Paragon's claim for equitable reformation under the Contract Disputes Act. 1 It was stated in Harvey v. United States, 105 U.S. 671, 679, 26 L.Ed. 1206 (1881), in order to explain why certain contractors had applied to Congress for a special act authorizing the Court of Claims to......
  • Dana Corporation v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • December 12, 1972
    ...bid, and acceptance constitute the real contract, and that the instrument is merely a reduction to form. Harvey v. United States, 105 U.S. 671, 688-689, 26 L.Ed. 1206 (1881). See G. Schwartz & Co. v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 82, 91 (1939); Pfotzer v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 390, 393, 111......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT