Hathaway Co v. United States

• Decision Date: 14 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 255,255
• Citation: 249 U.S. 460,63 L.Ed. 707,39 S.Ct. 346
• Parties: J. E. HATHAWAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

249 U.S. 460

39 S.Ct. 346

63 L.Ed. 707

J. E. HATHAWAY & CO.

v UNITED STATES.

No. 255.

Argued March 19 and 20, 1919.

Decided April 14, 1919.

Mr. George A. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from page 461-262 intentionally omitted] Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for the United States.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The United States solicited sealed proposals for the repair of a revetment in Michigan; and J. E. Hathaway & Co. became the successful bidders. Under a contract, dated May 11, 1910, they agreed to complete the work by December 1, 1910. It was not completed until 68 days later. Of this delay the government conceded that 29 days were attributable to extra work required by it, and 10 more days were not counted against the contractor, being Sundays and holidays. For the remaining 29 days' delay the government deducted from the contract price $3,082, claiming that amount under the provisions for liquidated and other damages. To recover the amount disallowed, J. E. Hathaway & Co. brought suit in the Court of Claims, which denied them relief (52 Ct. Cl. 267); and the case comes here on appeal.

First. Claimants contend that they were entitled to an extension of more than these 29 days' time for completing the work, because the contract and bond were delivered by them to the government May 18, duly executed, but were not approved by the Chief of Engineers until June 9, and notice of approval was not given them until June 13. The origin of this delay was the failure of the surety company to file with the War Department a copy of the vote of its directors giving him who signed the bond as attorney in fact authority so to do. But claimants insist that this omission could have been quickly supplied, if the government had telegraphed for a copy of the vote, and that practically all the delay was due to its unreasonable failure so to do.

The Court of Claims found:

'There was no unreasonable delay on the part of the government in approving the contract.'

This finding, like one of reasonable value (Talbert v. United States, 155 U. S. 45, 46, 15 Sup. Ct. 4, 39 L. Ed. 64), is a finding of an ultimate fact by which this court is bound, unless it appears that the finding was made without supporting evidence (Cramp v. United States, 239 U. S. 221, 232, 36 Sup. Ct. 70, 60 L. Ed. 238; Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 17 Sup. Ct. 71, 41 L. Ed. 477; United States v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37, 24 L. Ed. 696), or is inconsistent with other facts found (United States v. Berdan Fire-Arms Co., 156 U. S. 552, 573, 15 Sup. Ct. 420, 39 L. Ed. 530). There is no such lack of supporting evidence or inconsistency here. We have consequently no occasion to determine whether, as was held in American Dredging Co. v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 350, unreasonable delay on the part of the government in approving a contract for an accepted bid can entitle the contractor to a corresponding extension of time, where a definite date...