Peabody v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants, as partners, under the firm name and style of Henry W. Peabody & Co., did, on the 1st day of July, 1904, enter into the following contract for the supply of coal for the use of the Quartermaster’s Department, United States Army, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905: “ This agreement, entered into this first day of July, nineteen hundred and four,…
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimants, as partners, under the firm name and style of Henry W. Peabody & Co., did, on the 1st day of July, 1904, enter into the following contract for the supply of coal for the use of the Quartermaster’s Department, United States Army, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905: “ This agreement, entered into this first day of July, nineteen hundred and four, between John L. Clem, colonel and assistant quartermaster-general, United States Army, of the first part, and Henry Wayland…
1Opinion of the Court
Peelle, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The claimants, by the terms of the contract set forth in the findings, agreed to furnish and deliver to the Quartermaster’s Department, United States Army, Philippine Islands, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, 70,000 tons of Wallsend coal, from Australia in deliveries ex ship Manila Bay, at the rate of 8,000 tons per month, and at certain other places in said islands mentioned in the contract upon the 'giving of the notice therein required, all at the price of $5.15 per ton.
The claimants commenced delivery in August, 1904, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fritz-Rumer-Cooke Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Keith v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931
- Camden Iron Works v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1915