Sweeney v. United States
| Decision Date | 17 December 1883 |
| Citation | 109 U.S. 618,27 L.Ed. 1053,3 S.Ct. 344 |
| Parties | SWEENEY v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from page 618 intentionally omitted]
[Statement of Case from pages 618-620 intentionally omitted] T. W. Bartley and M. I. Southard, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellee.
This judgment is affirmed on the authority of Kihlberg v. U. S. 97 U. S. 398. It was provided in the contract that payment for the wall was not to be made until some officer of the army, civil engineer, or other agent, to be designated by the United States, had certified, after inspection, 'that it was in all respects as contracted for.' The officer of the army designated under this authority expressly refused to give the necessary certificate, on the ground that neither the material nor the workmanship were such as the contract required. The court below found that there was neither fraud nor such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, nor any failure to exercise an honest judgment on the part of the officer in making his inspections. The appellant was notified of the defective character of the material and that it would not be accepted before he put it into the wall, and after he had completed his work the wall which he constructed was taken down by order of the quartermastergeneral, and a new one made of other material built in its place.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis Cattle Co., Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Company
...many cases, including, Martinsburg & Potomac R. R. Co. v. March, 114 U.S. 549, 5 S.Ct. 1035, 29 L.Ed. 255, Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.S. 618, 3 S.Ct. 344, 27 L.Ed. 1053, Chicago & Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. Price, 138 U.S. 185, 11 S.Ct. 290, 34 L.Ed. 917, and Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U......
-
State Highway Dep't v. Macdougald Const. Co
...no exposition is allowable contrary to the express words of the instrument." That decision was followed in Sweeney v. United States, 109 U. S. 618, 3 S.Ct. 344, 27 L.Ed. 1053, involving a contract for the building of a wall. In Chicago, etc., Railroad Co. v. Price, 138 U.S. 185, 11 S.Ct. 29......
-
Seaboard Lumber Co. v. U.S., 88-1486
...exercise an honest judgment...." Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U.S. 398, 402 [24 L.Ed. 1106 (1878) ]; Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.S. 618, 620 [3 S.Ct. 344, 344, 27 L.Ed. 1053 (1883) ]; Martinsburg & P.R. Co. v. March, 114 U.S. 549, 553 [5 S.Ct. 1035, 1037, 29 L.Ed. 255 (1885) ]; Chicago......
-
31 658 Contractors, Inc v. United States 8212 88
...departed from the Kihlberg view that the same standard of judicial review is available to both parties. Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.S. 618, 3 S.Ct. 344, 27 L.Ed. 1053 (1883), reiterated the Kihlberg rule in another suit by a contractor dissatisfied with a disputes decision rendered by a......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...at 213. 28. 114 U.S. 549 (1885). 29. Id. at 553. 30. 97 U.S. 398 (1878). 31. Id. at 401. 32. Id. at 402. 33. Sweeney v. United States, 109 U.S. 618 (1883). 34. Id. at 620. 35. See infra text accompanying notes 65–73. 36. Wood v. City of Ft. Wayne, 119 U.S. 312 (1886). 37. Id. at 320. 38. Di......