Murdock v. District of Columbia
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters' statement of the case: The case was referred to Daniel Donovan, esq., as referee, who"was directed to ascertain the number of yards of paving for which the contractors were entitled to $3.20 a yard under the decision of this court in the leading case on that point, Cranford & Hoffman (20 O. Cls. E., 376). The referee reported the facts; both parties filed exceptions; and the case came to a hearing on a motion to confirm,- etc.
Read the full summary
The Reporters' statement of the case: The case was referred to Daniel Donovan, esq., as referee, who"was directed to ascertain the number of yards of paving for which the contractors were entitled to $3.20 a yard under the decision of this court in the leading case on that point, Cranford & Hoffman (20 O. Cls. E., 376). The referee reported the facts; both parties filed exceptions; and the case came to a hearing on a motion to confirm,- etc. The court, while adopting his findings upon all matters submitted to his determination, disregarded the report, and filed a finding of facts. The case…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldon, J.
The petition alleges that, in the year 1875, the claimant performed a large amount of Scharf paving on the streets of Washington, under extension of certain contracts entered into with the District of Columbia. This suit was brought to recover a balance due, as is alleged, of $10,066.
*470Under the extension of contract's, the claimant laid 51,830.84 square yards of Scharf pavement, for which he has been paid at the rate of $3 per yard. He was also paid the sum of $4,079.24 for grading and haul, and the sum of $1,247.25 as extra allowance for work on De Sales street, because of the peculiar…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kiskadden v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1909