Barry v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. This is a petition by appellants, partners under the style of Henry W. Peabody & Company, for a balance alleged to be due on account of coal furnished the Quartermaster’s Department, Philippine Division of the Army.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. This is a petition by appellants, partners under the style of Henry W. Peabody & Company, for a balance alleged to be due on account of coal furnished the Quartermaster’s Department, Philippine Division of the Army. So much of the contract, which was in writing and duly signed and approved, as required by § 3744 of Revised Statutes, as is essential to a judgment, may be shortly stated: The contractors agreed to sell and deliver at Manila or certain other designated points, 70,000 tons of coal known as “Wallsend” coal, of good quality “for steaming purposes” at…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Lurton
From the facts it is plain that the contractors could not and did not deliver a cargo of “Wallsend” coal in January, 1905, as their contract obligated them to do. This temporary inability was due to a strike at the colliery. This did not excuse them, since the contract did not so provide. The cargo of mountain coal which was bought to meet the immediate demand, though the same price was- paid for it, had a fuel value of $3,193.32 less than that of the same quantity of Wallsend coal, as determined by tests and comparisons with the sample of Wallsend coal, and the question is whether this loss…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Fritz-Rumer-Cooke Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1960
- Swartzbaugh Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- United States v. YorkDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1995
- Tatelbaum ex rel. Creditors of A. Hoen & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986
- Shilman v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.