Williams Engineering & Contracting Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business in the city of New York; and it has at all times borne true faith and allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way aided or abetted or given encouragement to rebellion against said Government. II.
Read the full summary
The Reporter’s statement of the case: The following are the facts of the case as found by the court: I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly created and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal office and place of business in the city of New York; and it has at all times borne true faith and allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way aided or abetted or given encouragement to rebellion against said Government. II. On April 14,1908, the plaintiff entered into a contract, numbered 1314, with the United States, through the Secretary of…
1Opinion of the CourtBooth, Judge
Plaintiff company on April 14,1908, entered into a written contract with the proper officers of the United States to complete Dry Dock No. 4 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. George B. Spearin was the original contractor for the construction *369of the dock, and had proceeded to some extent toward its completion when he encountered difficulties with the defendants, resulting in the annulment of his contract on November 14, 1907. The plaintiff’s obligation imposed upon it the necessity of tailing up the construction work on the dock at the point where Spearin left off. On April 14, 1908, the date of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. SpearinSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Simpson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- United States v. O'BRIENSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- King v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- New York Shipbuilding Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1993
- Boeing Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Standard Dredging Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
- Goltra v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.