United States v. Gibbons
Decision Date | 12 November 1883 |
Citation | 27 L.Ed. 906,3 S.Ct. 117,109 U.S. 200 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. GIBBONS, Jr |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The principal question in this case relates to the proper construction of a building contract betwwen the parties, entered into May 22, 1866, the United States acting by Joseph Smith, chief of the bureau of yards and docks, under the authority of the navy department, for the repair of the entrance buildings and carpenter-shop at the Norfolk navy-yard, which had been destroyed by fire in 1861, at the outbreak of the eivil war. The contract required the appellee to furnish, at his own risk and expense, all the materials and work necessary for the repairs of the buildings, according to the plans and specifications annexed; and entrance buildings to be entirely completed and delivered within 120 days, and the carpentershop within 30 days, from the date of the contract. A gross sum was to be paid for the work on each, partial payments to be made during the progress of the work upon the certificate of the superintendent, and final payment when the work should be entirely completed, according to the plans and specifications, 'and to the satisfaction of the party of the second part.' It was declared in the contract that 'no extra charge for modifications will be allowed unless mutually agreed upon by the parties, and no changes or modifications mutually agreed upon by the parties to this contract shall in any way affect its validity.' The specifications for the entrance buildings contained the following clause, upon which the case turns: 'The foundations and the brick walls now standing that were injured by the fire will remain, and be carried up to the height designated in the plan by new work.' The contract was made in pursuance of proposals, invited by an advertisement, in which it was stated that 'persons desiring to bid must necessarily visit the yards and examine the present condition of the works, and can there see the plans and specifications to enable them to bid understandingly.' The findings of fact by the court of claims bearing on this point are as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Kraus
...88 Mo. 285, 292; Haynes v. Second Baptist Church, 12 Mo. App. 536; Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Heinz, 120 Mo. App. 465, 97 S.W. 188; United States v. Gibbons, 109 U.S. 200; Sandy Hites Co. v. State Highway Comm., 347 Mo. 954, 149 S.W. (2d) 828. (3) This rule is followed in other jurisdictions. Unit......
-
U.S. v. Winstar Corp.
...had been a State or a municipality or a citizen"); United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 144 (1872) (same); United States v. Gibbons, 109 U. S. 200, 203-204 (1883) (where contract language "susceptible of two meanings," government's broader obligation was "sufficiently plain" from "the circ......
-
Allen v. Kraus
... ... Church, 12 Mo.App. 536; Beattie Mfg. Co. v ... Heinz, 120 Mo.App. 465, 97 S.W. 188; United States ... v. Gibbons, 109 U.S. 200; Sandy Hites Co. v. State ... Highway Comm., 347 Mo. 954, ... ...
-
Webb-Boone Paving Co. v. State Highway Com'n
... ... such obstructions would not be encountered. Simpson v ... United States, 172 U.S. 372; United States v ... Spearin, 248 U.S. 132; Maryland Cas. Co. v. Board ... encountered being other than as so represented. United ... States v. Gibbons, 109 U.S. 200, 3 S.Ct. 117; United ... States v. Utah. N. & C. Stage Co., 199 U.S. 414, 26 ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...United States, 46 Ct. Cl. 139, 173 (1910); King v. United States, 37 Ct. Cl. 428, 436 (1902). 19. See CIRCO, supra note 13, at 125–26. 20. 109 U.S. 200 (1883). 21. Id. at 203. 22. Id. at 203–04. 23. Id. at 204–05. 24. Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108, 119 (1884). 25. D.C. v. Cle......