United States v. Edward Freel
Decision Date | 02 June 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 224,224 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err. , v. EDWARD J. FREEL, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Edward Freel, Deceased |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. George Hines Gorman and Assistant Attorney General Pradt for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James Russell Soley for defendant in error.
In September, 1898, the United States of America brought an action in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district on New York against John Gillies, Henry Hamilton, and Hugh McRoberts, Catharine Freel, Edward J. Freel, and Frank J. Freel, as executors of Edward Freel, deceased.
The complaint alleged that theretofore, and on the 17th November, 1892, the defendant John Gillies entered into a contract in writing with the plaintiff to construct a timber dry dock, to be located at the United States Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, according to certain plans and specifications attached to and made part of said contract; that on said 17th November, 1892, the said John Gillies, as principal, and Henry Hamilton and Hugh McRoberts, and Edward Freel, as sureties, executed their joint and several bond to the United States in the penal sum of $120,600, conditioned for the faithful performance by the said Gillies of his contract to construct said dry dock; that Gillies entered upon the performance of said contract; that subsequently, on June 16, 1893, Gillies and the United States agreed in writing to change and modify the plans and specifications so as to increase the length of said dry dock from 600 to 670 feet; that on August 17, 1893, Gillies and the United States further agreed in writing to change and modify the contract in certain particulars; that Gillies proceeded with the work under said original and supplemental contracts so slowly, negligently, and unsatisfactorily that the Secretary of the Navy, under the option and right reserved to him by the said contract, declared the said contract forfeited on the part of said Gillies; that thereupon, by a board duly appointed, the market value of the work done and of the materials on hand was appraised at the sum of $170,175.40; that thereafter, under the provisions of said contract, the Secretary of the Navy proceeded to complete said dry dock and appurtenances in accordance with the said contracts, plans, and specifications, at a cost to the United States of the sum of $370,000; that the sum of $72,414.16 represented the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of said Gillies' breach of contract; that Edward Freel died on the 24th day of December, 1896, leaving a last will appointing Catharine Freel, Edward J. Freel, and Frank J. Freel executors thereof; that the said defendant John Gillies neglected and refused to perform the terms and conditions of said contract on his part, and that the plaintiff has performed, fully and completely, all the terms and conditions of said contract on its part. Wherefore the plaintiff demanded judgment against the said defendants in the said sum of $72,414.16, with interest from April 1, 1897.
On November 26, 1898, Edward J. Freel, as executor of Edward Freel, deceased, appeared and demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it appeared upon the face thereof that said complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. On May 24, 1899, after hearing the counsel of the respective parties, the circuit court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the complaint as to said Edward J. Freel as executor. 92 Fed. 299. The case was taken to the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit, and on January 5, 1900, that court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. 39 C. C. A. 491, 99 Fed. 237. On December 22, 1900, a writ of error was allowed, and the cause was brought to this court.
The question in this case is whether a surety on a contractor's bond, conditioned for performance of a contract to construct a dry dock, was released by subsequent changes in the work made by the principals without his consent.
As the question is presented to us on a general demurrer to the complaint, it is necessary to set forth, with some particularity, portions of the original and of the supplemental contracts, which form parts of the complaint.
The original contract, dated November 17, 1892, contained, after alleging that proposals had been made and accepted for the construction by contract of a timber dry dock, to be located at the United States Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, the following provisions:
* * * * *
The supplemental contract of June 16, 1893, contained, among other things, the following:
'This agreement, entered into this 16th day of June, 1893, between John Gillies, contractor, for the construction of a dry dock at the U. S. Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, party of the first part, and Norman H. Farquhar, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks of the Navy Department, for and in behalf of the United States, party of the second part,
'Witnesseth: That, whereas, the Navy Department has decided to lengthen the said dry dock from six hundred (600) feet, as called for in the specifications forming a part of the contract for the construction of a dry dock at the above-mentioned location, entered into by the above-mentioned parties of the first and second parts on the 17th of November,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prescott Nat. Bank v. Head
...How. (U.S.) 149, 16 L.Ed. 518; Roach v. Summers, 20 Wall. (87 U.S.) 165, 22 L.Ed. 252; United States v. Freel, 92 F. 299, 186 U.S. 317, 22 S.Ct. 875, 46 L.Ed. 1177; Ryan Morton, 65 Tex. 258; Barclay v. Deckerhoof, 151 Pa. 374, 24 A. 1067; Snoqualmi Realty Co. v. Moyniham, 179 Mo. 629, 78 S.......
-
Snow v. Duxstad
... ... 73; Miller v. Stewart, ... 9 Wheat. 680; Smith et al. v. United States, 2 Wall ... 219; Reese v. United States, 9 Wall. 13; United ... States v. Freel, 186 U.S. 309; Guaranty Co. v ... Pressed Brick Co., 191 U.S. 416.) ... ...
-
Utah Construction Company v. State Highway Commission
...v. Clark, 31 Wyo. 284; Dunn v. Gilbert, 36 Wyo. 249; Denio v. Mail, 25 Wyo. 143; Bushnell v. Elkins, 34 Wyo. 495; Jones Ev. 545; U. S. v. Freel, 186 U.S. 309. Plaintiff is estopped. Wilson v. Salt Lake City, P. 847; McGrann v. R. R. Co., supra; Hawkins v. U.S. 12 Ct. Cl. 181. Estoppel may b......
-
Burke Construction Co. v. Board of Improvement of Paving District No. 20
...quantities of materials, without any authorization on the part of the board. 104 F. 457; 88 N.E. 330; 82 N.E. 523; 92 F. 299; 99 F. 237; 186 U.S. 309; 274 659. 4. It is unconscionable for the district to ask, and would be inequitable for the court to grant, any damages on account of the ite......