United States v. John Gleason 23, 24 1899
Decision Date | 06 November 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
Citation | 20 S.Ct. 228,175 U.S. 588,44 L.Ed. 284 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Appt. , v. JOHN R. GLEASON and George W. Gosnell. Argued October 23, 24, 1899. Ordered for reargument |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In the first suit, upon findings of fact and law, there was a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for retained percentage in the sum of $3,011.99, and for net profits which they would have made if they had been allowed to complete the work in the sum of $60,537.50. In the second suit there was a judgment for retained percentage in the sum of $2,401, and for net profits, if the contract had been carried on to completion, in the sum of $2,827.50. The aggregate judgment in the two cases was for the sum of $68,777.99.
There was a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and also for an amendment of the findings of fact, which was granted in part. Thereupon this appeal was taken.
The findings of fact in the suit upon the first contract were as follows:
as therein provided for, at the rate of 85 cents per cubic yard, and to complete the same on or before December 31, 1886.
'II. The season from August, 1885, to December 31, 1886, was favorable in the main for the character of work provided for by the contract, though the claimants were compelled by reason of high water and freshets to suspend their operations a number of times, and by reason of these difficulties, coupled with an insufficient force of men and other means necessary for the performance of the work, they only 'completed 14 per cent of their entire work' during the contract period, 1 1/2 per cent of which was done in 1885.
inability to complete the work within the contract period, as aforesaid, they requested an extension of their contract to December 31, 1887, which was granted on conditions stated in a supplemental contract, as follows:
'The foregoing agreement was made subject to approval of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, and was thereafter duly approved by the acting Secretary of War.
'IV. The claimants not having completed their contract during the year's extension thereof as aforesaid, they, on December 31, 1887, requested a second extension of said contract to December 31, 1888, for the reasons set forth in their communication of that date, which is as follows "Louisville, Ky., Dec. 31st, 1887.
"Major Amos Stickney,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. A.
'Which letter was forwarded to the Chief of Engineers with the following communication:
"U. S. Engineer Office,
Louisville, Ky., December 31st, 1887.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. T. Clark & Co. v. Miller, State Revenue Agent
... ... War before United States participated therein ... Courts ... v. Sartorious, 46 Miss. 56; John S. Penrice v. Wallis et ... al., 37 Miss. 172 ... 880, 64 P. 1027; ... Seaton v. Heath (1899), 1 Q. B. 782; Dane v ... Mortgage Ins. Corp, ... United ... States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588, 602, 44 L.Ed. 284, ... 289, 20 ... ...
-
Sheldon v. Chi. Bonding & Sur. Co.
...Co. v. Ferguson, 233 Ill. 88, 79 N. E. 35;Keachie v. Starkweather Drainage District, 168 Wis. 298, 170 N. W. 236;U. S. v. Gleason, 175 U. S. 588, 20 Sup. Ct. 228, 44 L. Ed. 284;Seim v. Karuse, 13 S. D. 530, 83 N. W. 583;Ruch v. York City, 233 Pa. 36, 81 Atl. 891; Kilmer v. U. S., 48 Court o......
-
McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co.
...governing disputes arising in construction and similar contracts have been generally upheld. As said in United States v. Gleason, 175 U. S. 588, 602, 20 S. Ct. 228, 233, 44 L. Ed. 284, "* * * It is competent for parties to a contract, of the nature of the present one construction contract, ......
-
31 658 Contractors, Inc v. United States 8212 88
...his decision in favor of the contractor 'was conclusive upon the company.' Id., at 292, 14 S.Ct., at 345. United States v. Gleason, 176 U.S. 588, 20 S.Ct. 228, 44 L.Ed. 284 (1900), involved a Government official's disputes decision adverse to the contractor. The Court again affirmed the rul......
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...United States v. Callahan Walker Constr. Co., 317 U.S. 56 (1942); Ripley v. United States, 223 U.S. 695 (1912); United States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588 (1900). 67. Gleason , 175 U.S. at 602. 68. United States v. Moorman, 338 U.S. 457 (1950). 69. Id. at 461. 70. Id. at 462. 71. United States ......