Smith v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters5 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the report: I. On August 15, 1901, the United States, by Mordecai T. Endicott, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in the Navy Department, published an advertisement calling for bids for the construction of a coaling plant at the New York Navy Yard, a true copy of which appears at the head of Specification 1182, in Exhibit 1, attached to the amended petition herein.
Read the full summary
The Reporters5 statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the report: I. On August 15, 1901, the United States, by Mordecai T. Endicott, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, in the Navy Department, published an advertisement calling for bids for the construction of a coaling plant at the New York Navy Yard, a true copy of which appears at the head of Specification 1182, in Exhibit 1, attached to the amended petition herein. The specification referred to in said advertisement, which is the same as that marked “ Specification No. 1182 ” and attached to the…
1Opinion of the CourtBooth, J.
The claimant, Augustus Smith, entered into a written agreement on November 18,1901, to furnish all materials and labor necessary to construct a coal-storage plant at the New York Navy Yard. The work was to be completed within 12 calendar months from the date of the contract. The coal-storage plant contemplated by the contract was to be a steel structure containing four panels or pockets so arranged that movable machinery above the same could be used in hoisting and depositing coal inside these pockets, the purpose being to coal vessels from said pockets expeditiously. At the timé of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- District of Columbia v. Camden Iron WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- McGowan v. American Pressed Tan Bark Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Laidlaw-Dunn-Gordon Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1912