Goodrich v. United States
United States Court of Claims
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following aré tbe facts as found by tbe court: I. Tbe original claimant herein, a partnership composed of James E. Simpson, James E. Simpson, jr., Alfred H. Simpson, and William E. Simpson, was doing business under tbe firm name of J. E. Simpson & Co. at the time of tbe contract and work thereunder hereinafter referred to.
Read the full summary
On the Proofs. The Reporters’ statement of tbe case: Tbe following aré tbe facts as found by tbe court: I. Tbe original claimant herein, a partnership composed of James E. Simpson, James E. Simpson, jr., Alfred H. Simpson, and William E. Simpson, was doing business under tbe firm name of J. E. Simpson & Co. at the time of tbe contract and work thereunder hereinafter referred to. By order of the supreme court of Kings County, N. Y., January 10, 1907, the claimant herein, Henry W. Goodrich, was appointed receiver of certain property, equitable interests, rights, and things in the action of said…
1Opinion of the CourtAtkiNSON, J.
The claim herein against the United States grew out of a contract to construct a dry dock at the Brooklyn (New York) Navy Yard, dated October 13, 1887. Prior to the execution of the contract the plaintiff company was furnished, at its request, by the officers of the Navy Department, a profile made by B. O. Asserson, a naval engineer at said navy yard, purporting to show the different strata of soils that would be encountered in the excavation for *204said dry dock, which profile showed 10 borings 50 feet apart and averaging about 40 feet in depth. This profile and report did not show the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Simpson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Jaeger v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1898