Manufacturing Company v. United States

Decision Date01 October 1873
Citation21 L.Ed. 715,17 Wall. 592,84 U.S. 592
PartiesMANUFACTURING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

The Amoskeag Manufacturing Company brought suit in the Court of Claims against the United States on a contract, by which the company had agreed to make and deliver, and the United States had agreed to receive and pay for, all the Lindner carbines, not exceeding six thousand, which the company could make in six months from the 15th day of April, 1863, to be approved and inspected by Major Hagner, and by which for each carbine so inspected and delivered the United States was to pay $20.

Immediately after making this contract, the company entered upon the preparations necessary to the performance of the work; and it was found as a fact by the Court of Claims that the company had the necessary means and facilities, and could have delivered the six thousand carbines of the kind contracted for within the six months limited, in conformity with the agreement as first made, had not changes and alterations been desired and requested by the government.

In regard to these changes, the court found that General Ripley, chief of ordnance, by letter of the date of April 23d, 1863, requested certain alterations to be made in the construction of the carbine; that these were made by the contractors as requested, and that these necessitated other changes to make the parts conform, and also alterations in the machinery, and new tools and fixtures to perform the work. Other changes were made in the construction of the weapon by the contractors, on their own motion, which were important and judicious, and which materially improved it. How much time these changes required did not precisely appear; but it was admitted that they necessarily required two or three months, a part of which resulted from the action of the department, and that the contractors proceeded in good faith and without unnecessary delay.

It was further found that, on or about the 5th of April, 1864, the company exhibited one of the weapons for inspection, and gave notice to the department that the company was then ready to commence delivery, and would deliver the entire six thousand as rapidly as the government could inspect them, and asked that they should be then inspected and received by the department, which was not done then and had not since been done. It was further found that inspection of contract arms was always made at the place of manufacture, and was made of the parts of the arm before they were put together. It was also found that the time consumed by the company in filling the contract beyond the time fixed by its terms, to wit, six months, was rendered necessary and indispensable by the changes, alterations, and delays caused solely by and for the interest of the government; and further that the government was aware of the progress of the work, and gave no notice that it should refuse to accept the work if not delivered within the six months. The arms were inspected by a competent person, and found to be according to contract, and were packed in cases and tendered to the government, which refused to receive or pay for them.

The six thousand carbines were still at the time of this suit, brought March 15th, 1870, in the hands of the company, not having been offered for sale, and on the 21st of March, 1871, when the Court of Claims gave...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Wunderlich v. State Highway Commission
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 14 d1 Novembro d1 1938
    ... ... and by the courts of the other states of the union. This ... applies to the question of accord and ... unanimously approved by a long line of decisions of the ... United States Supreme Court; and is in accord with justice ... and right ... contract with a lumber company, under the terms of which it ... was the duty of the board of supervisors ... ...
  • United States v. Skinner & Eddy Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 31 d2 Julho d2 1928
    ...entered the sphere of a private party (Cooke v. United States, 91 U. S. 389, at page 398, 23 L. Ed. 237; Manf'g Co. v. United States 17 Wall. 84 U. S. 592, 21 L. Ed. 715; Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 34 S. Ct. 553, 58 L. Ed. 898; Reading, etc., Co. v. United States, 268 U. S.......
  • Sawyer v. Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 10 d4 Abril d4 1913
    ... 205 F. 160 SAWYER et al. v. GRAY et al. No. 1,696. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Southern Division. April 10, 1913 ... Hyde & Co. and the applications made by that company were for ... complainants' benefit. On March 21, 1902, the Land ... ...
  • Wallis v. Inhabitants of Wenham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 5 d3 Janeiro d3 1910
    ... ... 189; Palmer v. Stockwell, 9 ... Gray, 237; Amoskeag Manuf. Co. v. United ... States, 17 Wall. 592, 21 L.Ed. 715. But in many of the ... decisions ... ...
  • 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