Legal Opinion

Camden Iron Works v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 6, 1915No. 157, DepartmentalPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDowney, Judge

There are three amounts which it is contended the claimant is entitled to recover, and consideration of the one which it seems to us presents the real subject of controversy may best receive our attention by first disposing of the other two. They are stated by counsel as follows:

1. Admitted balance------------------------------------$3, 711. 86

2. Erroneous deduction_________________________________ 5, 500.00

3. Cost of making changes____________________________ 4, 375. 74

Item 1 is a retained percentage of 25 per cent, which is admittedly due, but has not been paid because of the prescribed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. United States v. United Engineering & Contracting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Mosler Safe Co. v. Maiden Lane Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1932
  2. New York Continental Jewell Filtration Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1920
  3. Austin Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1923
  4. Greeley Iron Works v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API