United States v. Bliss, 394

• Decision Date: 03 January 1899
• Docket Number: No. 394,394
• Citation: 172 U.S. 321,19 S.Ct. 216,43 L.Ed. 463
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. BLISS
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

172 U.S. 321

19 S.Ct. 216

43 L.Ed. 463

UNITED STATES

v BLISS.

No. 394.

January 3, 1899.

On August 22, 1863, Donald McKay contracted with the United States for the construction of the gunboat Ashuelot; the contract to be completed in 11 months from that date. On account of changes and additional work required by the government, and other details for which it was responsible the completion of the vessel was delayed from July 22, 1864, to November 29, 1865, a period of 16 months and 7 days beyond the contract term. Full payment of the contract price was made, and also of an additional sum for changes and extra work. On August 30, 1890, congress passed an act (26 Stat. 1247) submitting to the court of claims the claims of the executors of Donald McKay for still further compensation. Such act contains this proviso:

'Provided, however, that the investigation of said claim shall be made upon the following basis: The said court shall ascertain the additional cost which was necessarily incurred by the contractors for building the lightdraught monitors Squando and Nauset and the side-wheel steamer Ashuelot in the completion of the same, by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications required and delays in the prosecution of the work: provided, that such additional cost in completing the same, and such changes or alterations in the plans and specifications required, and delays in the prosecution of the work were occasioned by the government of the United States; but no allowance for any advance in the price of labor or material shall be considered unless such advance occurred during the prolonged term for completing the work rendered necessary by delay resulting from the action of the government aforesaid, and then only when such advance could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence on the part of the contractors.'

Under this act this suit was brought. Upon the hearing the court of claims, in addition to the facts of the contract, performance, time of completion, and payment, found that:

'During the contract period of eleven months, and to some extent during the succeeding sixteen months and seven days, the government made frequent changes and alterations in the construction of the vessel, and delayed in furnishing to the contractor the plans and specifications therefor, by reason of which changes and delay in furnishing plans and specifications the contractor, without any fault or lack of diligence on his part, could not anticipate the labor, nor could he know the kind, quality, or dimensions of m terial which would be made necessary to be used in complying with said changes.

'While the work was so delayed during and within the period of the contract as aforesaid, the price of labor and material greatly increased, which increased price thereafter continued without material change until the completion of the vessel, sixteen months and seven days subsequent to the expiration of the contract period. The increased cost to the contractor as aforesaid was by reason of the delays and inaction of the government, and without any fault on his part.'

And rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner for, among other things, the increased cost of the labor and material furnished by him, consisting of two items of $12,608.71 and $14,815.66. From this judgment the United States appealed to this court.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Pradt and C. C. Binney, for the United states.

John S. Blair, for appellee.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

No question is made, except as to so much of the judgment as is for the increased cost of labor and material. The allowance for that is challenged under the clause of the act of 1890, 'but no allowance for any advance in the price of labor or material shall be considered unless such advance occurred during the prolonged term for completing the work rendered necessary by delay resulting from the action of the government aforesaid.' The finding is that there was an advance in the price of labor and material during the contract term of 11 months, and that such increased price continued thereafter without material change during the 16 months and 7 days between the close of the contract term and the actual completion of the vessel. Of course, but for the act of August 30, 1890, no action could be maintained against the government. The statute of limitations...