Harvey v. United States
Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
Citation | 26 L.Ed. 1206,105 U.S. 671 |
Parties | HARVEY v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Enoch Totten for the appellants.
The Solicitor-General, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Simons, for the United States.
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,
The appellants put in the following proposal:——
'ROCK ISLAND, May 25th, 1869.
'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
---------
'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:
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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Merrill v. Wenzel Bros., Inc.
...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.
...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.
...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
...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......