United States v. Corlisscompany
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Docket Number | STEAM-ENGINE |
| Citation | 91 U.S. 321,23 L.Ed. 397 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CORLISSCOMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THE facts upon which the decision of the court rests are set forth in its opinion.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Solicitor-General Phillips for the United States, and Mr. Joseph Casey for the appellees.
This case comes before us on appeal from the Court of Claims, and involves a consideration of the validity and binding character of a settlement, made between the Secretary of the Navy and the claimant, for work performed by the latter upon contracts with the Navy Department. There is no dispute about the facts of the case (they are fully and clearly stated in the findings of the Court of Claims); and it would seem that there ought not to be any dispute as to the law applicable to them. The validity of the contracts is not questioned. The work upon them was done under the supervision of an inspector of the Navy Department, and no complaint is made of the manner in which it was done. When, in 1869, the department, upon the recommendation of a board of officers of the navy appointed by it, suspended the further progress of the work under the contracts, the claimant made a written proposition, in the alternative, either to take all the machinery and receive $150,000, or to deliver it in its then incomplete condition at the Navy Yard at Charlestown for $259,068, payable on delivery there. The department accepted the latter proposition, recognizing the amount specified as the balance due on settlement of the contracts; stating, however, that, in consequence of the very limited appropriations, only a partial payment would be made on delivery of the machinery at the Charlestown Navy Yard, and that the balance could not be paid until Congress should make a further appropriation, but that a certificate for the amount due would be given to the claimant.
The machinery was accordingly delivered at the Navy Yard, with the exception of a few articles, for which a deduction from the amount of the settlement was allowed, and the certificate stipulated was given to the claimant. Previous to this, however, the chief engineer of the navy, under direction of the department, examined the machinery, and made a detailed report, by which the department was fully informed of its condition, the progress made in its construction, and what remained to be done for its completion under the contracts. There is no allegation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
RY-TAN CONST. v. WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY
...923 (3d Cir.1995); see also Torncello v. United States, 231 Ct.Cl. 20, 681 F.2d 756, 764 (1982) (citing United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U.S. 321, 23 L.Ed. 397 (1875), as the case first articulating and providing the basic legal theory to support, the modern termination for con......
-
31 658 Contractors, Inc v. United States 8212 88
...no review would lie.6 See United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 260 U.S. 323, 43 S.Ct. 128, 67 L.Ed. 286; United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U.S. 321, 23 L.Ed. 397. By the disputes clause7 the decision of the AEC is 'final and conclusive' unless 'a court of competent jurisdiction'......
-
The State ex rel. Chaney v. Grinstead
... ... (c) This court has held that it will ... take judicial notice of the United States census returns and ... also of the election returns and contents of the Official ... ...
-
LINAN-FAYE CONST. v. Housing Authority
...Rule 1179 of Army Regulations of 1863, a prototype for the modern termination for convenience doctrine); United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U.S. 321, 23 L.Ed. 397 (1876) (presenting legal theory that became basis for modern doctrine); 40 Stat. 1272 (1919) (the Dent Act); 58 Stat.......
-
The Property Clause, Article Iv, and Constitutional Structure
...the Act would be consistent with protecting federal title from being divested improperly. 163. United States v. Corliss Steam-Engine Co., 91 U.S. 321, 322 (1875); see Biber & Diamond, supra note 41.164. See Gates, supra note 86, at 175; U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Circular to Receivers ......
-
Balancing the Scales: Applying the Fair Compensation Principle to Determine Recovery for Commercial Item Contracts Terminated for the Government's Convenience
...in the performance of the work; (2) costs allowable under a special termination cost principle 17 United States v. Corliss-Steam Eng. Co., 91 U.S. 321 (1876). 18 Torncello v. United States, 681 F.2d 756, 764–65 (Ct. Cl. 1982). 19 Id. (citing NASH & CIBINIC, FEDERAL PROCUREMENT LAW 1106-07 (......