The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, Plaintiffs In Error v. Abraham Knapp and Others
Decision Date | 01 January 1835 |
Parties | THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR v. ABRAHAM KNAPP AND OTHERS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
This was an action of assumpsit, instituted originally in the county court of Montgomery county, in the state of Maryland; and by agreement of the parties transferred, with all the pleadings, depositions and other proceedings therein, to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.
The declaration contained nine counts: the first, second and third, for goods sold and delivered; the fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth, for work, labour and services, and for materials furnished, &c. the sixth, for money paid, laid out and expended, and for money had and received for the use of the plaintiffs; and the seventh, an insimul computassent. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit, and issue was joined thereon. A rule having been entered on the plaintiffs to file a bill of particulars, the same was duly filed, setting forth all the items of claim against the defendants.
The plaintiffs, in the circuit court, had, on the 4th day of May 1829, entered into articles of agreement with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, to execute certain sections of the canal, then being made by the company; according to certain specifications before agreed upon by the parties. Under this agreement the plaintiffs constructed eight locks on the canal, and this action was brought for the value of the work done, and materials expended on the same, and for other matters which had arisen under the agreement.
The only item in the bill of particulars which was deemed material, and which came under examination and discussion by the counsel and the court, in the argument and decision of the cause, was the following:
'To detention for want of cement at proper times at locks No. 8, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20; damages sustained in consequence of such detention 600 dollars.
The defendants in error read in evidence the specification for lock No. 6, and their offer to contract for the construction of the said lock, on the terms therein stated; and also a paper containing their proposal to execute the said lock, according to the plan and the specification; and they proved that the proposals were accepted. They also read the agreement between them and the Canal Company, dated the 4th of May 1828, for the construction of the work pursuant thereto: and also like specifications and proposals, and their acceptance by the parties, for the execution of the other eight locks, and the contract for the same; the execution of the work to be done by them under the said contract, being also proved. The specifications particularly described the work to be done, the materials to be used, and the manner and time of its execution. In the specifications there was inserted the following:
'It is believed that hydraulic cement, suitable for the construction of lock masonry, may be obtained on the Potomac, as far east as Shepherdstown.
The proposals stated the prices at which the work was to be done; and the agreement set forth stipulations for the performance of the work, and the sums to be paid for the same; with other matters to secure and define the obligations of the parties thereto.
The plaintiffs also offered, and read in evidence, the following resolution of the President and Directors of the Canal Company, passed the 2d day of September 1829.
'Ordered, That the board will furnish water lime to such contractors for masonry as shall provide houses to receive it, to be delivered at the river shore, opposite to their works, at 40 cents per bushel.'
And also the following resolution of the said president and directors, passed the 20th of January 1830.
'Resolved, That although this board has stipulated to supply the contractors with water lime, yet the board will not be held responsible for any damage arising from the want of that article.'
And also the answer of Theophilus Williams, to an interrogatory on the part of the plaintiffs.
And also the answer of Milo Winchel, to an interrogatory on the part of the plaintiffs.
'To the ninth interrogatory, this deponent answering, says: that the defendants delivered the cement very irregularly, in small quantities, which caused very great hindrance and loss of time, and expense to these plaintiffs, by keeping a very large force of mechanics, common labourers, and teams, lying idle and upon expense of wages and board, whilst waiting for cement; the precise loss and damage incurred deponent cannot state, but, form his best recollection, would say, that the loss of time thus incurred, from the 1st of March 1830 until the completion of the said locks in August, therefrom, could not be less than forty days, at an expense to these plaintiffs of from 160 dollars to 170 dollars per day; besides the damage was very serious by delaying the work until the sickly months of July and August, which was the cause of a great advance in all kinds of labour, to induce labourers to remain upon the line of the canal at this season of the year; all this expense and risk might have been saved to these plaintiffs, had the cement been furnished as agreed on the part of the defendants, which would have enabled the plaintiffs to have completed the whole of their work early in June 1830.'
And also the answer of Henry Smith, to an interrogatory on the part of the plaintiffs.
And also the answer of Moses Randal, to an interrogatory on the part of the plaintiffs.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Third Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. St
...not necessary in such case to declare upon the special contract. Bank of Columbia T. Patterson, 7 Cranch, 307 . In Chesapeake & 0. C. Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 565 , Mr. Justice McLean very succinctly stated the rule thus: 'There can be no doubt that where the special contract remains open, the ......
-
Griffith v. Frankfort General Insurance Company
... ... Sewall, 3 Wend. 269; ... Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 541, 9 ... Mills Co. v. Titus, 35 Ohio St. 253 ... There ... are no ... party seeks to enforce a contract between others, he ... must show some promise for his benefit, ... ...
-
Sylvania Industrial Corporation v. Lilienfeld's Estate
...in its absence. 12 Am.Jur. 1038-1040; Logan County Bank v. Townsend, 139 U.S. 67, 11 S.Ct. 496, 35 L.Ed. 107; Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Knapp, 9 Pet. 541, 565, 9 L.Ed. 222. As said by Chief Justice Taft, when Circuit Judge, in Hayes v. City of Nashville, 6 Cir., 80 F. 641, 645, "It is we......
-
Burstein v. State Bar of California
... ... that her failure must have resulted from an error in grading, so she wrote to the Bar requesting ... Page 514 ... answer the others. The court declined to compel discovery and ... v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 212 F.2d 147 (5th Cir.1954). Lone ... the state provided through its insurance company regulations for customers of in-state companies ... ...