Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

223 U.S.

as not complying with the specifications. The fact that the court gave judgment in Ripley's favor indicates that it was of opinion that the agent had made an improper decision. But so far as appears his only error was in construing the contract strictly, according to its terms, instead of adopting a method of mean or average measurement for which the contractor contended. The supplemental agreement was not retroactive so as to give the plaintiff a cause of action for the prior rejection, even though thereafter a different method of measurement was permitted. The balance of the amount allowed the plaintiff was by way of returning the expenses of inspection which had been charged against him, during the suspension of the work while the tug was grounded on the bar and the contractor's force disorganized on account of the yellow fever epidemic. The contract provided that the expenses of inspection might in some cases be remitted but this could only be with the prior consent of the Chief of Engineers. There is no finding that such consent was given.

But the error in entering judgment in Ripley's favor as to any of these items, and the propriety of disallowing the others for which he sued arises from the fact that the officer's decision was binding. All these claims relate to matters which under the contract were submitted to the engineer. There is no finding that he acted in bad faith. Indeed, it is not even found that the decisions were erroneous, though that is implied. But the contract did not contemplate that the opinion of the court should be substituted for that of the engineer. In the absence of fraud, or gross mistake implying fraud, his decision on all these matters was conclusive.

On the findings of fact the plaintiff is entitled to recover $11,908.90, with interest as provided in Rev. Stat., § 1090. The judgment of the Court of Claims must be so modified and Affirmed.1

1 See order on p. 750, post.

[blocks in formation]

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM OCTOBER 9, 1911, TO MARCH 31, 1912.

No. 497. QUINCY, OMAHA & KANSAS CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ORA T. SHOHONEY. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted May 29, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 112, 116, 117; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93; Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 146; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361. Mr. John A. Eaton for the plaintiff in error. Mr. I. N. Watson for the defendant in error.

No. 524. YEUNG HOW, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS YEUNG CHOW, APPELLANT, v. HART H. NORTH, UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ETC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 716; § 14 of act of May 6, 1882, 22 Stat. 61. Mr. Carroll Cook, Mr. Arthur A. Birney and Mr. Henry F. Woodard for the appellant. The Attorney General, The Solicitor General, and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for the appellees.

No. 635. W. S. BRYAN, APPELLANT, v. BLISS-COOK OAK COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion

VOL. CCXXIII—45

Opinions Per Curiam.

223 U.S.

to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the appellant. Mr. John B. Jones and Mr. George B. Rose for the appellees.

No. 636. W. S. BRYAN, APPELLANT, v. EDWIN S. LAYMAN. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the appellant. Mr. U. M. Rose, Mr. G. B. Rose, Mr. W. E. Hemingway, Mr. E. H. Adams and Mr. J. F. Loughborough for the appellee.

No. 637. W. S. BRYAN, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM BAGNELL. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the appellant. Mr. U. M. Rose, Mr. G. B. Rose, Mr. W. E. Hemingway and Mr. J. F. Loughborough for the appellee.

No. 638. MARCUS G. RIDER, APPELLANT, v. BLISS-COOK OAK COMPANY ET AL. Appeal from the United States

[blocks in formation]

Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the appellant. Mr. John B. Jones and Mr. G. B. Rose for the appellees.

No. 639. S. L. MOSER, APPELLANT, v. EDWIN S. LAYMAN. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149; Macfadden v. United States, 213 U. S. 288. Mr. Julian Laughlin for the appellant. Mr. U. M. Rose, Mr. G. B. Rose, Mr. W. E. Hemingway, Mr. E. H. Adams and Mr. J. F. Loughborough for the appellee.

No. 713. ELIZABETH CASSIDY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COlorado, on THE RELATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF COLORADO. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado. Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted October 9, 1911. Decided October 13, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Elder v. Colorado, 204 U. S. 85. Mr. Henry J. Hersey for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. George Q. Richmond, Mr. Benjamin Griffith, Mr. Henry A. Lindsley and Mr. Frederic D. McKenney for the defendant in error.

[blocks in formation]

No. 299. J. A. SCRIVEN COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. RiceSTIX DRY GOODS COMPANY. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion to dismiss submitted October 18, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; § 6 of act of March 3, 1891, chap. 517, 26 Stat. 828. And see Hutchinson, Pierce & Co. v. Loewy, 217 U. S. 457. Mr. Arthur v. Briesen and Mr. Hans v. Briesen for the appellant. Mr.F. W. Lehmann and Mr. S. L. Swarts for the appellee.

No. 413. MIKE BEECHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V, THE UNITED STATES. In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Submitted October 19, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197; Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 520; Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138; Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521; Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333. Mr William J. Rohde for the plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr for the defendant in error.

No. 414. MIKE BEECHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES. In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Submitted October 19, 1911. Decided October 23, 1911. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Farrell v. O'Brien, 199 U. S. 100; David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 216 U. S. 610; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244; Hawaii v. Mankichi,

« AnteriorContinuar »