Sanford Brooks Co v. United States

• Decision Date: 09 March 1925
• Docket Number: No. 175,175
• Citation: 45 S.Ct. 341,69 L.Ed. 734,267 U.S. 455
• Parties: SANFORD & BROOKS CO. v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

267 U.S. 455

45 S.Ct. 341

69 L.Ed. 734

SANFORD & BROOKS CO.

v UNITED STATES.

No. 175.

Argued Jan. 15, 1925.

Decided March 9, 1925.

Mr. William L. Marbury, of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. Horace S. Whitman and Charles Clagett, both of Washington, D. C.), for appellant.

Messrs. Merrill E. Otis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. and Alfred A. Wheat, of New York City (Mr. James M. Beck, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Sanford & Brooks Company agreed with the United States to dredge a channel at a fixed rate per cubic yard of material dredged. Payment for the number of yards dredged was made at the contract rate. Later, this suit was brought to recover additional sums, as upon a quantum meruit. One claim was that the material to be removed within the contract lines had been misdescribed in the specifications; and the rule applied in United States v. Atlantic Dredging Co., 253 U. S. 1, 40 S. Ct. 423, 64 L. Ed. 735, and United States v. Spearin, 248 U. S. 132, 39 S. Ct. 59, 63 L. Ed. 166, was invoked. Another claim was that, through a mistake of the government's representative, work had been done outside the limits prescribed by the contract, and that this was more burdensome. The Court of Claims, after a hearing upon the evidence, entered judgment for the defendant. 58 Ct. Cl. 158. The case is here on appeal under section 242 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1219). The appeal was filed in this court on September 20, 1923. It was not reached for argument until January 15, 1925. On January 9, 1925, the plaintiff filed, with its brief on the merits, a motion to remand. The document, including appendices, contained 65 printed pages.

The reliance in this court was wholly upon the motion to remand. The claim on account of work inside the contract lines was not insisted upon here. The claim for work outside the contract lines was urged in the brief on the merits, but at the argument plaintiff conceded that, upon the findings of fact made, there could be no recovery. The contention then presented was that this court could not come to a proper decision on this claim without having findings as to the existence or nonexistence of eight additional alleged facts; and that to this end the cause should be remanded to the lower court. The government objected to the allowance of the motion to remand on the grounds that the findings already made were definite; that they included all material facts; and that, if the additional facts asserted were found, these would not change the legal result. The objections are, in our opinion, sound.

Plaintiff asserts that the additional findings would show that, when the erroneous location of the work was discovered, it made...