Henry Ripley v. United States No 887 United States v. Henry Ripley No 888
Decision Date | 24 April 1911 |
Docket Number | Nos. 887 and 888,s. 887 and 888 |
Parties | HENRY C. RIPLEY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 887. UNITED STATES, Appt., v. HENRY C. RIPLEY. NO 888 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. William H. Robeson, Benjamin Carter, and F. Carter Pope for ripley.
Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Philip M. Ashford for the United States.
These are cross appeals from a judgment entered by the court of claims against the United States and in favor of Henry C. Ripley. The claim of Ripley was based upon a written contract between himself and the United States, executed on April 6, 1903, containing numerous stipulations, by which in substance Ripley agreed to furnish materials for and do certain jetty work at Aransas Pass, Texas, authorized by an act approved June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 340, chap. 1078).
In his amended petition Ripley set forth numerous items of damage, aggregating $45,930, which it was asserted resulted from violations by the United States of the terms of the contract. Judgment was entered against the United States for $14,732.05. 45 Ct. Cl. 621. Ripley prosecuted this appeal in order to obtain an increased allowance while the United States, by its cross appeal, seeks a reversal of the judgment.
Among other things it was provided in paragraph 61 of the specifications as follows:
A large sum was demanded by Ripley, upon the contention that the completion of the work was greatly delayed, owing to the fact that 'on the portion of the line where no foundation had previously been laid, and where petitioner therefore placed the foundation materials, said Captain Jadwin and the subordinate officers in charge forbade and restrained petitioner from imposing the cap blocks until long after the foundation, in their judgment and, in fact, had become sufficiently consolidated and they had caused the creast to be leveled.' On this branch of the case the court of claims found as follows:
'7.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JL Simmons Company v. United States
...prove that the Government's actions on its claims had been taken in bad faith." Attention is also drawn to Ripley v. United States, 220 U.S. 491, 31 S.Ct. 478, 55 L.Ed. 557 (1911), and Ordinance Engineering Corp. v. United States, 68 Ct.Cl. 301, 335-336 Plaintiff observes that the "Disputes......
-
United States v. Esnault-Pelterie
...283 U.S. 102, 120, 51 S.Ct. 446, 452, 75 L.Ed. 867. 14 United States v. Pugh, 99 U.S. 265, 270, 25 L.Ed. 322; Ripley v. United States, 220 U.S. 491, 496, 31 S.Ct. 478, 55 L.Ed. 557; Winton v. Amos, 255 U.S. 373, 395, 41 S.Ct. 342, 350, 65 L.Ed. 684; Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 27......
-
Bernardi Greater Shows, Inc. v. Boston & M. R. R.
... ... been construed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the essential questions as to its ... ...
-
Southern Express Company v. John Byers
... ... , and especially under the laws of the United States it is not responsible for such damages as ... ...