L. P. & J. A. Smith Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The facts of the case Sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Has the Goverment the legal right to withhold this $1,280 from the claimant under said clause of the contract'? Is it liquidated damages or a penalty ? Claimant holds that it is a mere penalty — that, $20 per day forfeiture does not measure .■ the damages.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: The facts of the case Sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. Has the Goverment the legal right to withhold this $1,280 from the claimant under said clause of the contract'? Is it liquidated damages or a penalty ? Claimant holds that it is a mere penalty — that, $20 per day forfeiture does not measure .■ the damages. In the case of Van Burén v. Digges (11 Howard, '461,) there was a clause in the contract as follows: “House to be built of two stories * * * and to be entirely finished and fit for occupation on or before the 15th day of December,…
1Opinion of the CourtPeelle, J.
June 24,1895, the claimant, a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, and the defendants, through Jared A. Smith, lieutenant-colonel, United States Army, entered into the contract, made part of the petition herein, whereby the claimant, in consideration of the sum of $16,987, payable as therein provided, agreed “to furnish all the materials and labor necessary to completely construct, erect, aud deliver on the date named in the specifications (September 30,1895), the crib and stone foundations for the Sandusky Bay range-light station, Ohio, in strict accordance with the terms of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Buren v. Digges Ex Rel. LibbeySupreme Court of the United States · 1851
3Cited by2 opinions
- Phoenix Iron Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1904
- Ellicott Machine Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1908