Haliday v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporters’ statement of the case: following are the facts as found by the court: B. Haliday and Samuel S. Richardson, were, at the time of the rendition of the services here-mentioned, partners ■ engaged in a general contracting and building business, under the firm name and style of Hali-day & Bichardson, iu the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. II.
Read the full summary
The Reporters’ statement of the case: following are the facts as found by the court: B. Haliday and Samuel S. Richardson, were, at the time of the rendition of the services here-mentioned, partners ■ engaged in a general contracting and building business, under the firm name and style of Hali-day & Bichardson, iu the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia. II. On the 4th day of March, 1891, petitioners entered into a written contract with the United States “to furnish at their own risk and expense all the materials, labor, and other services necessary or required in the erection and…
1Opinion of the CourtWeldoN, J.
This proceeding is based on certain contracts entered into by the claimants and defendants in March, April, May, and August, 1891 — the first on the 4th of March, the second on the 17th of April, the third on the 25th of May, and the fourth in August.
The contracts are in writing, except the last one, which is verbal. There is also a claim alleged in the eleventh paragraph of the petition, the substance of which is that the claimants sold to the firm of P. H. McLaughlin & Co., in June, 1891, cement amounting in value to the sum of $1,204.28, for the purpose of being used by them in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Phoenix Iron Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1904
- Pacific Hardware & Steel Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1913