Edgar & Thompson Foundry & Machine Works v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 22d of August, 1895, claimants entered into the following contract with the United States through Maj. James B. Quinn, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, acting as engineer of the Seventh and Eighth light-house districts: II.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. On the 22d of August, 1895, claimants entered into the following contract with the United States through Maj. James B. Quinn, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, acting as engineer of the Seventh and Eighth light-house districts: II. “Articles of agreement made and entered into between Edgar & Thompson Foundry and Machine Works, of the city of Mobile, a copartnership, composed of William Edgar, Julius Thompson, Harry Edgar, and Gustave It. Nelson, of the county of Mobile and State of…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldon, J.
This suit is prosecuted to recover the balance alleged to be due the claimants on the contract set forth in the findings, and the only controversy in the case grows out of the deduction by the defendants of the sum of $3,250 from the consideration, because of the faillure of the claimants to perform the contract within the time limited.
The findings show that there was a delay of one hundred and thirty days, which being computed at the rate of $25 per day amounts to said sum.
The contract required the claimants “to furnish all the labor and material necessary to completely construct, erect at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bignall v. GouldSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- Phoenix Iron Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1904
- Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1913
- Sheridan-Kirk Contract Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1917