Goldstone v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the CourtHat, Judge
The facts are fully set out in the findings. The plaintiff commenced work under the contract and was delayed nine-weeks by the defendant in its performance. It incurred losses and expenses amounting to the sum of $2,966.42. These facts are not disputed.
The law governing such cases is well established. Kelly & Kelly v. United States, 31 C. Cls. 361; Cramp & Sons v. United States, 41 C. Cls. 164; Mueller v. United States, 113 U. S. 153; United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214; Crook Company, Inc., v. United States, 59 C. Cls. 348. The defendant, insists that this case is similar to the case of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. MuellerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Kelly v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1896
- H. E. Crook Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
- H. E. Crook Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1924
3Cited by6 opinions
- McCloskey ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1928
- Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1937
- Karno-Smith Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1936
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931
- Steel Products Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.