United States v. Smith

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWAITE
Citation94 U.S. 214,24 L.Ed. 115
Decision Date01 October 1876
PartiesUNITED STATES v. SMITH

94 U.S. 214
24 L.Ed. 115
UNITED STATES
v.
SMITH.
October Term, 1876

APPEAL from the Court of Claims.

This was a suit by the appellee to recover damages for the suspension of his contract with the United States. By the contract the parties agreed:——

First, The said Joseph Smith, his heirs, executors, and administrators, agrees to superintend or cause to be superintended, and assist the soldiers in the erection of buildings at post of Beaver, Utah, according to plans and specifications; and agrees,

Page 215

also, to supply or cause to be supplied all the skilled labor and material necessary for the erection of the buildings, in conformity with said plans and specifications.

Second, It is agreed that, for and in consideration of the faithful fulfilment of the above stipulations in all their parts, the party of the second part shall be paid by the United States, at the office of the A. A. Q. M., at post of Beaver, Utah, as follows, viz:——

Sixty-nine thousand one hundred and seventy-seven dollars ($69,177), provided that the United States is not liable for any amount beyond the sums appropriated for such purpose during the fiscal years in which the services are rendered. Payment to be made in instalments at completion of each separate building, or as soon thereafter as funds may be received for that purpose. The buildings to be inspected and accepted by the United States.

The Court of Claims found the following facts:——

I. On the 1st December, 1873, while the buildings were in progress of construction, the contractor was stopped by order of the post-commander, with the approval of the commander of the department, and all work under the contract was ordered to be suspended. The contractor objected to the work being stopped, and requested that he be released from his agreement, unless the work could go on. The matter was referred to the Quartermaster-General, and by him submitted to the Secretary of War. Pursuant to orders of the latter, the contractor was allowed to resume work. The period of suspension was from the 1st December, 1873, to the 3d February, 1874. The defendants have paid for the work done under the contract, but have not paid the damages occasioned by the suspension of the work.

II. On the 30th October, 1874, General Ord, commanding the Department of the Platte, referred the contractor's claim for damages caused by the suspension to the quartermaster of the post of Beaver, who had had entire charge of the work from the beginning to the completion thereof, with instructions to report as to the damages caused by 'the unexpected stoppages and delays inflicted on the contractor, Smith, by the orders from Washington and department head-quarters; the exposed

Page 216

and unfinished condition in which he was compelled to leave the buildings during winter storms; the remoteness of the place of building, where all skilled labor had to be provided from a great distance, and which was left sometimes unoccupied and unpaid for on the contractor's hands; the deterioration in value of material left exposed while waiting for orders to continue the work.' The post quartermaster, under these instructions, reported the contractor's losses at $8,000, and the department commander approved the recommendation. The court finds the claimant's damages for the same to be $5,000.

III. During the progress of the work the contractor furnished and performed certain additional or extra work not required by his contract. But, on the inspection of the buildings before the final payment, it was found by the inspecting officer that the contractor had omitted to furnish and perform certain work required by the contract. It was subsequently agreed between the contractor and the defendant's officers that the extra work furnished should be received and stand in the place of that omitted by the contractor, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 practice notes
  • Lynch v. United States Wilner v. Same, Nos. 855
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1934
    ...v. Adams Express Co., 21 Wall. 138, 144, 22 L.Ed. 609; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 396, 23 L.Ed. 237; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 217, 24 L.Ed. 115; Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 171, 34 S.Ct. 553, 58 L.Ed. 898; Reading Steel Casting Co. v. United States, 268 ......
  • Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. 882-71.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • December 17, 1980
    ...more reasonable and thus more persuasive. See United States v. Miller, supra, 317 U.S. at 374-75, 63 S.Ct. at 280; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 219, 24 L.Ed. 115 (1876). Plaintiff is entitled to severance damages emanating from the partial taking and related to the remainder lands a......
  • Dobyns v. United States, No. 08-700C
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 16, 2014
    ...Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 219 (1876); Hi-Shear Tech. Corp., 356 F.3d at 1376. In order to adopt the jury verdict method, "[a] court must first determine three things: (1)......
  • Roy v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., 6115
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 18, 1934
    ...73 U.S. 94, 6 Wall. 94, 99, 18 L.Ed. 752, 753; The Baltimore, 75 U.S. 377, 8 Wall. 377, 387, 19 L.Ed. 463; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 218, 24 L.Ed. 115; Warren v. Stoddart, 105 U.S. 224, 229, 26 L.Ed. 1117, 1120; United States v. United States Fidelity & G. Co., 236 U.S. 512, 526,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
74 cases
  • Lynch v. United States Wilner v. Same, Nos. 855
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1934
    ...v. Adams Express Co., 21 Wall. 138, 144, 22 L.Ed. 609; Cooke v. United States, 91 U.S. 389, 396, 23 L.Ed. 237; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 217, 24 L.Ed. 115; Hollerbach v. United States, 233 U.S. 165, 171, 34 S.Ct. 553, 58 L.Ed. 898; Reading Steel Casting Co. v. United States, 268 ......
  • Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States, No. 882-71.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • December 17, 1980
    ...more reasonable and thus more persuasive. See United States v. Miller, supra, 317 U.S. at 374-75, 63 S.Ct. at 280; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 219, 24 L.Ed. 115 (1876). Plaintiff is entitled to severance damages emanating from the partial taking and related to the remainder lands a......
  • Dobyns v. United States, No. 08-700C
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • September 16, 2014
    ...Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 219 (1876); Hi-Shear Tech. Corp., 356 F.3d at 1376. In order to adopt the jury verdict method, "[a] court must first determine three things......
  • Roy v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., 6115
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 18, 1934
    ...73 U.S. 94, 6 Wall. 94, 99, 18 L.Ed. 752, 753; The Baltimore, 75 U.S. 377, 8 Wall. 377, 387, 19 L.Ed. 463; United States v. Smith, 94 U.S. 214, 218, 24 L.Ed. 115; Warren v. Stoddart, 105 U.S. 224, 229, 26 L.Ed. 1117, 1120; United States v. United States Fidelity & G. Co., 236 U.S. 512, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT