Smoot v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP CLAIMS. The.facts, which involve a claim for profits on a contract for sand with the United States for the Washington City Filtration Plant which the United States refused to receive, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a claim for the profits that would have been realized on sand that the claimant alleges to have been contracted for by the United States but that the United . States refused to receive, and for the cost of additional plant alleged to have been provided for the purpose of furnishing the sand. The Court of Claims rejected the claim. 48 Ct. Cl. 427. The facts are as follows:
By a. contract approved on April 20, 1903, the claimant undertook to furnish for the Washington filtration plant 140.200 cubic yards, more or less, of filter sand, to be deposited in twenty-nine filter beds, at $2.65…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brawley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. Harvey Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Watts v. CamorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Parish v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- United States v. O'BRIENSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
3Cited by21 opinions
- Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Berkeley County Public Service District v. Vitro Corp. of AmericaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1968
- Dale Construction Co. v. United States, Seaboard Surety Co.United States Court of Claims · 1964
- Shader Contractors, Inc. And Citizens National Bank of Orlando, Assignee v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
- Eustis Mining Co. v. Beer, Sondheimer & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1917
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.