Little v. District of Columbia
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters1 statement of the case: In this case findings of facts were prepared and filed by the court; but every material fact, including those parts of the contracts in suit which required construction, will be found fully stated in the opinion of the Chief Justice.
1Opinion of the Court
Drake, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Michael Shiner, the claimant’s intestate, had two contracts in writing, entered into in September, 1871, with the Board of Public Works of the District of Columbia, for the grading of Eleventh street east, between Pennsylvania avenue and H street; one numbered 109 and the other 110.
The price stipulated in the contracts to be paid for the grading was 20 cénts per cubic yard.
Under those contracts Shiner, prior to the 29th of August, 1872, graded 19,591 cubic yards; which was but a small portion of the whole grading required by the contracts. Of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brown v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1881
- Burke v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1877
- Baird v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Roche v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1883
- Morse Arms Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1880
3Cited by6 opinions
- Barnes v. District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Claims · 1887
- Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927
- Gonzales y Garcia v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1902
- Oberndorfer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928
- Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1918
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.