United States v. Cook, 80
| Decision Date | 13 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 80,80 |
| Citation | 42 S.Ct. 200,66 L.Ed. 350,257 U.S. 523 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. COOK et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Lovett, for the United States.
Mr. Wm. R. Harr, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Eames and Young, architects of St. Louis, made the plans for a custom house at San Francisco and supervised its construction. They were to receive compensation at the rate of 5 per centum upon the actual cost of the work. The work was long delayed, three years, by the San Francisco earthquake and fire, which increased the cost of labor and materials. Congress authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, within a limit of $250,000, to make good to the contractor his loss from the delay and enhanced prices, so that he should receive enough to recoup him for his outlay, but without profit. The architects claimed from the government 5 per centum on the extra amount paid to the contractor. Eames died, and Cook, his executor, joining with the surviving partner, Young, brought this suit in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims gave judgment for $5,085.38, the full amount of the claim. The government appeals.
The contract provided that the fee of the architects was to be computed at the rate of 5 per centum upon 'the actual cost of the work executed from the drawings and specifications, as shown upon the books of the supervising architect's office, by the net amounts of contracts awarded and proposals accepted for additions and deductions.' Until the actual cost could be determined, the monthly payments were to be on the proposed cost as estimated from time to time by the government, and upon the completion of the building the entire fee was to be computed on the actual construction cost of the work executed from the architect's drawings and specifications and under their supervision, as shown upon the books of the supervising architect's office. The extra amount paid the contractor was in fact shown upon the books of the supervising architect's office, though not, of course, included in the total cost stated before the passage of the act and the ascertainment of the amount due thereunder.
The clause in the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act approved May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 318, providing for an extra payment to the contractor was as follows:
'The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, upon completion of the custom house in * * * San Francisco, California, to pay to Thomas Butler, the contractor for the construction of said building, in addition to the contract price therefor, such sum as may be equitable and just to reimburse said contractor for any loss actually sustained in consequence of the earthquake and great fire of April, 1906, not exceeding the sum of $250,000: Provided, that the amount allowed said Thomas Butler shall not be sufficient to enable him to make any profit out of the making and execution of said contract.'
The committee appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust the claim found that the actual increased cost to the contractor of constructing the building due to delay and the increased prices of labor and material was $101,907.66. During the delay of three years, the architects under their subsidiary contract had to keep a superintendent of construction on the building at a cost of $6,700, and their office and certain contingent expenses in San Francisco went on.
The government contends that the amount awarded to the contractor under the act was a mere gratuity and cannot be properly treated as a part of the cost of construction. We cannot agree to this view. It seems to us that this was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lynch v. United States Wilner v. Same
...64, 68, 2 S.Ct. 39, 27 L.Ed. 352; Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 166, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657; United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 523, 527, 42 S.Ct. 200, 66 L.Ed. 350. On the other hand, war risk policies, being contracts, are property and create vested rights. The terms of these c......
-
De Rodulfa v. United States
...characterization of pension-type benefits as gratuities drew upon earlier decisions to the same effect. United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 523, 527, 42 S.Ct. 200, 66 L.Ed. 350 (1922); Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 166, 15 S.Ct. 586, 39 L.Ed. 657 (1895); United States v. Teller, 107 U......
-
Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.
...contractor extra pay or benefits if he will complete the contract, such an agreement is valid and enforceable. United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 525, 526, 42 S.Ct. 200, 66 L.Ed. 350; Scanlon v. Northwood, 147 Mich. 139, 110 N.W. 493. It is unnecessary that such a change or modification of the......
-
Seligman's, Inc. v. United States
...L.Ed. 658." United States ex rel. Burnett v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 68, 2 S.Ct. 39, 43, 27 L.Ed. 352; see also United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 525, 527, 42 S.Ct. 200, 66 L. Ed. 350; Silberschein v. United States, 266 U.S. 221, 225, 45 S.Ct. 69, 69 L.Ed. The plaintiff places much reliance upon......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...of N.Y. v. United States, 254 U.S. 83 (1920). 83. Wells Bros. Co. , 254 U.S. at 87 (1920). 84. Id. 85. See, e.g. , United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 523 (1922) (rejecting an architect’s claim for additional compensation based on a literal reading of the contract); Day v. United States, 245 U.......
-
Economics and Austerity Relative to Veterans' Claims and the Veterans Appeal Process
...Decatur , 39 U.S. at 498–99. 87 Id. 88 Id. 89 Id. 90 See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 577(1934); see also United States v. Cook, 257 U.S. 523, 527 (1922); Frisbie v. United States, 157 U.S. 160, 166 (1895); United States v. Teller, 107 U.S. 64, 68 (1883) (discussing the distinction......