United States v. Mueller Mueller v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 January 1885 |
| Citation | 28 L.Ed. 946,113 U.S. 153,5 S.Ct. 380 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MUELLER. MUELLER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for United States.
Enoch Tolten, for Mueller.
Before July 23, 1872, the United States advertised for proposals for furnishing and delivering at the site of the United States governmment BUILDING TO BE ERECTED AT CHICAGO, ILLINois, 'all of the dimension stone required in its construction.' John M. Mueller submitted a proposal, dated July 23, 1882, 'to furnish dimension stone in accordance with the attached advertisement,' at specified prices. This proposal was accepted by a notice to him, which said: 'You are hereby notified that your proposal to furnish all the dimension stone that may be needed for the exterior of the new custom-house building to be erected in the city of Chicago,' for specified prices, 'the stone to be delivered at the site of the building, and in such quantities and at such times as the department, or its duly-authorized agent, may direct, is accepted.' On the second of September, 1872, a written contract, in pursuance of such advertisement and proposal, was made between the United States and Mueller, which described Mueller as the person 'to whom was awarded a contract for certain dimension stone required in the construction of the new custom-hosue, court-house, and post-office building, at Chicago, Illinois, on his bid received under advertisement, and dated July 23, A. D. 1872.' By the contract, which was made on behalf of the United States by the supervising architect of the treasury department, Mueller agreed to furnish from his quarry, 'and deliver at the site of the aforesaid buildings, all of the dimension stone that may be required in the construction of said building,' and to furnish and deliver 100,000 cubic feet of the stone on or before the first of January, 1873, 'and the remainder at such times, and in such quantities, as may be required' by the supervising architect; and the United States agreed to pay to Mueller certain specified prices. The stone was known as 'Buena Vista freestone.'
On the ninth of December, 1871, Mueller entered into another contract with the United States, on his bid made under an advertisement, by which he agreed to furnish the cutting of the Buena Vista freestone to be used in the basement story, sill, and lintel course of said building, in accordance with a specification attached, by which he was to deliver the stone, cut and ready for setting, 'promptly and as required by the superintendent, so that the progress of the work will not be interrupted.' By the contract, all the stone for the area wall was to be cut, lewised and ready for setting on or before the first of March, 1873, and the pier-stones, and sill and lintel course, as soon thereafter as required by the superintendent.
On the eighteenth of July, 1873, Mueller entered into another contract with the United States, by which he agreed 'to furnish such number of mechanics and laborers as may be required from time to time' by the superintendent, and all of the tools and materials necessary to cut, dress, and if necessary box, all of the stone required for the construction of said building, 'and to cut such stone in such manner and at such place as may be required' by the superintendent, and to furnish, free of cost, to the government all shops, sheds and machinery necessary to cut, dress, and box said stone; and it was agreed, that all materials required for the cutting or boxing of said stone should be supplied only upon the requisition of the superintendent, and that not less than 250 stone-cutters, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wunderlich v. State Highway Commission
... ... v. U.S. 17 Wallace 592, 21 L.Ed. 715; Mueller v ... U.S. 113 U.S. 153, 28 L.Ed. 946; U.S ... and by the courts of the other states of the union. This ... applies to the question ... United States Supreme Court; and is in accord with ... ...
-
George A. Fuller Co. v. United States
...18 L.Ed. 916. It also so held in United States v. Speed, supra; and in United States v. Smith, supra; and in United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153, 156, 5 S.Ct. 380, 28 L.Ed. 946; and in United States v. Wyckoff Pipe & Creosoting Co., 271 U.S. 263, 46 S.Ct. 503, 70 L.Ed. 938; and this was ......
-
Krall Coal Co. v. Century Indem. Co.
...in W. H. Purcell Co. v. Sage, 200 Ill. 342, 346, 65 N.E. 723, Mueller v. United States, 19 Ct.Cl. 581, 591, affirmed, 113 U.S. 153, 5 S.Ct. 380, 28 L.Ed. 946, and McKeever, Cook & Co. v. Canonsburg Iron Co., 138 Pa. 184, 188, 16 A. 97, 20 A. 938, relied upon by the defendant. In each of the......
-
Bowe v. United States
... ... subject: Amoskeag Manuf'g Co. v. U.S., 17 Wall ... 592; U.S. v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214. Clark v. U.S., ... 6 Wall. 543; Mueller v. U.S., 113 U.S. 155, 5 ... S.Ct. 380 ... 4. This ... leads to the consideration of the question presented by the ... language used ... ...
-
The Construction Industry in the U.S. Supreme Court: Part 1, Contract Law
...41. See Smithmeyer v. United States, 147 U.S. 342 (1893); Tilley v. Cnty. of Cook, 103 U.S. 155 (1880). 42. United States v. Mueller, 113 U.S. 153 (1885). 43. See, e.g. , Conde v. York, 168 U.S. 642 (1898) (subcontractor’s claim based on assignment of funds due to the general contractor); G......