Eslin v. DisTrict of Columbia
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of these cases as found by the court: I. During the years 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875 Daniel A. Connolly had a large number of written contracts with the District of Columbia for the improvement of the streets of Washington, made and signed, as required by the Act of Feb-mary 21,1871, chapter 62, section 537 (16 Stat. L., 427). His administrator now sues to recover balances alleged to be due on eleven of these…
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of these cases as found by the court: I. During the years 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875 Daniel A. Connolly had a large number of written contracts with the District of Columbia for the improvement of the streets of Washington, made and signed, as required by the Act of Feb-mary 21,1871, chapter 62, section 537 (16 Stat. L., 427). His administrator now sues to recover balances alleged to be due on eleven of these contracts, with their extensions. The claims in the other three above-entitled cases are based upon assignments from…
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
This case now comes before ns for a new trial, based upon assignments of error alleged to have been committed in our former findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The first error alleged is that Connolly, the contractor, is charged with $2,850.52, paid him December 5, 1873. Plaintiff urges in support of his contention that a controversy arose between Connolly and the board of public works as to his compensation; that the matter was referred to commissioners, who found a certain amount due, which was paid. This, it is contended, was in effect a submission to arbitration. The conclusion was in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnard v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Eslin v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barnes v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1902
- Dickson v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1896