Murphy v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the Court of Claims. ■Murphy entered into a written contract with‘the United States.for excavating a portion of the pit for a dry dock, and was paid-at'the contract price for all the work which he performed. He subsequently presented to the Navy Department a claim ■for damages suffered by reason of certain alleged violations of the contract, and for extra work.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Claims. ■Murphy entered into a written contract with‘the United States.for excavating a portion of the pit for a dry dock, and was paid-at'the contract price for all the work which he performed. He subsequently presented to the Navy Department a claim ■for damages suffered by reason of certain alleged violations of the contract, and for extra work. The department adopted a basis of adjustment, to which he agreed; and there was paid to him a certain sum, which, upon full information as to the principles upon which it was awarded, he- accepted, and gave a ■receipt in…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
■ We are clearly of the opinion that the acceptance by the claimant, without objection, of the amount allowed b.y the Secretary of the Navy, in his adjustment of the account presented to him, was equivalent to a final ¿ettlement arid compromise of all the items of the present claim included in that account. There is nothing in the findings of the court below to warrant a judgment in favor of the claimant upon the only item included in the petition in this case which was not mentioned specifically in the account presented to the Secretary of the Navy and passed on by him in the adjustment he…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Pope v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- St. L., B. & M. Ry. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Harte v. CastetterNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Johnson v. Gallatin Valley Milling Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.