Hinkley v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On the Proofs. The Reporter’s statement of the case: Tte following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant entered into the contract with defendants through the Interior Department for the building of a schoolhouse, referred to in the petition. II.
Read the full summary
On the Proofs. The Reporter’s statement of the case: Tte following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The claimant entered into the contract with defendants through the Interior Department for the building of a schoolhouse, referred to in the petition. II. The contract was dated September 30, 1905, and by its terms the work was to be completed on or before April 1 following, and the house so contracted to be built and completed was not completed until April 20, 1906. III. The contract was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior until November 3, 1905, but when signed by…
1Per curiam
Our conclusions in this case are based upon the following considerations:(1) A settlement having been made in 1906, it was too late to reopen it for a revision by the Comptroller of the Treasury upon application made several years thereafter. Sec. 8, act of July 31, 1894; 28 Stat. L., 207.(2) The statements of the officials made long after the settlement and based upon their deductions from the records and letters in the case are not to be accepted as admissions binding on the Government. Waters’s case, 4 C. Cls., *151390; Gordon’s case, 6 C. Cls., 292; Brannen's case, 20 C. Cls., 219;…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ittner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1908
- Little Falls Knitting Mill Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1908
- Allen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1893
- Brannen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1885
- Callahan Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.