Sand Filtration Corp. of America v. Cowardin
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP APPEALS OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Day
This case presents a question as to the proper construction of a certain contract. It arises as follows: Cowardin, Bradley, Clay & Company, hereinafter called the Cowardin Company, had a contract with the Government of the United States for the construction of a filtration plant in the city of Washington. In the partial performance of the contract they had expended about $1,300 in money and had contracted debts somewhat in excess of $14,000. Afterwards, on May 26, 1903, the Cowardin Company sublet the contract to the appellees May and Jekyll. By this contract May and Jekyll agreed to…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Fox v. Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Osborne v. Locke Steel Chain Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- West v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1945
- West v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
- Clay's Administrator v. KellySupreme Court of Virginia · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.